|
1. Received for Development (Consultation from DDC)
|
|
|
|
1.1 Label Only
This level is intended primarily for submission by organized groups rather than individuals. The DDC will consult with the submitter and provide
education related to diagnostic development through printed guidelines and workshops. At this stage the label is categorized as "received for development" and identified as such on the NANDA-I Web site and
in NANDA-I Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification.
|
|
|
1.2 Label and Definition
The label is clear and stated at a basic level. The definition is consistent with the label. The label and definition are distinct from other
NANDA-I diagnoses and definitions. At this stage, the diagnosis must be consistent with the current NANDA-I definition of nursing diagnosis. The definition is supported by literature references and these
are identified.
|
|
|
1.3 Label, Definition, and Defining Characteristics or Risk Factors
The defining characteristics or risk factors (for risk diagnoses) are consistent with the label. The
defining characteristics are distinct, observable, and measurable. Each defining characteristic and risk factor contains a single concept rather than a listing of multiple concepts, and each one is supported by
literature references and these are identified. The content is consistent with all NANDA-I definitions and qualifiers.
|
|
2. Accepted for Publication and Inclusion in the NANDA-I Taxonomy and the NNN Nursing Practice Taxonomy
|
|
|
2.1 Label, Definition, Defining Characteristics or Risk Factors, Related Factors, and References
At 2.1, references are cited for the definition, each defining
characteristic or risk factor, and each related factor. In addition, it is recommended that the submitter provide examples of nursing interventions (NIC or other nursing intervention) and nursing outcomes (NOC
or other nursing outcome). The label will be forwarded to the Taxonomy Committee for classification.
|
|
|
2.2 Concept Analysis
The criteria in 2.1 are met. In addition, a narrative review of relevant literature, culminating in a written concept analysis, is required to
demonstrate the existence of a substantive body of knowledge underlying the diagnosis. The literature review/concept analysis supports the label and definition, and includes discussion and support of the defining
characteristics or risk factors (for risk diagnoses) and related factors (for actual diagnoses).
|
|
|
2.3 Consensus Studies Related to Diagnosis Using Experts
The criteria in 2.2 are met. Studies include those soliciting expert opinion, Delphi, and similar studies of
diagnostic components in which nurses are subjects.
|
|
3. Clinically Supported (Validation and Testing)
|
|
|
3.1 Literature Synthesis
The criteria in 2.2 are met. The synthesis is in the form of an integrated review of the literature. Search terms/MESH terms used in the review
are provided to assist future researchers.
|
|
|
3.2 Clinical Studies Related to Diagnosis, But Not Generalizable to the Population
The criteria in 2.2 are met. The narrative includes a description of studies related
to the diagnosis, which includes defining characteristics or risk factors, and related factors. Studies may be qualitative in nature, or quantitative studies using nonrandom samples in which patients are subjects.
|
|
|
3.3 Well-Designed Clinical Studies With Small Sample Sizes
The criteria in 2.2 are met. The narrative includes a description of studies related to the diagnosis, which
includes defining characteristics or risk factors and related factors. Random sampling is used in these studies, but the sample size is limited.
|
|
|
3.4 Well-Designed Clinical Studies With Random Sample of Sufficient Size to Allow for Generalizability to the Overall Population
The criteria in 2.2 are met. The
narrative includes a description of studies related to the diagnosis, which includes defining characteristics or risk factors, and related factors. Random sampling is used in these studies and the sample size
is sufficient to allow for generalizability of results to the overall population.
|
