Kontakt 2013, 15(4):387-395 | DOI: 10.32725/kont.2013.046

Validity of defining characteristics of chronic confusionNursing

Gabriela Vörösová*, Dana Zrubcová, Andrea Solgajová
Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre, Fakulta sociálnych vied a zdravotníctva, katedra ošetrovateľstva

The paper aims to nursing diagnosis of Chronic confusion (00129) from NANDA-I (North American Nursing Diagnosis Association International) in conditions of selected workplaces. The sample was made up of 93 experts. An expert was considered to be a nurse with minimum 4 points according to modified Fehring criteria for the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
The Ferhing Diagnostic Content Validity Model was used for content validity. Importance of defining characteristics was analyzed by the validity instrument containing 13 items (9 defining characteristics of Chronic confusion (00129) from NANDA-I, 3 items of MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination: Folstein test and 1 neutral characteristic).
The nurses - experts considered changes in time orientation, space (0.88), long-term cognitive disorder (0.82), progressive cognitive disorder (0.79) and disturbed stimulation interpretation and reaction to them to be the main defining characteristics. Two items - absent concious disorder (0.41) and rapid thinking (a neutral item) (0.31) were excluded. The total score of chronic confusion was 0.67. The detailed analysis showed that expert's item score influences the evaluation of defining characteristics to the main ones and the secondary ones.
The study confirmed the validity of eight defining characteristics of chronic confusion from NANDA-I and that's way this nursing diagnosis can be considered as a valid one. The proper selection of expert sample is an important step in the process of validity of nursing diagnosis.

Keywords: validity; nurse; expert; chronic confusion; demency

Received: May 13, 2013; Accepted: September 24, 2013; Published: December 20, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vörösová G, Zrubcová D, Solgajová A. Validity of defining characteristics of chronic confusion. Kontakt. 2013;15(4):387-395. doi: 10.32725/kont.2013.046.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Avant K. The art and science in nursing diagnosis development. Nursing Diagnosis. 1990;1(1):51-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Caldeira SMA, de Cássia Lopes Chaves E, de Carvalho EC, Vieira MM da Silva. Validation of nursing diagnoses - The differential diagnostic validation model as a strategy. Journal of Nursing. 2012;6(6):1441-5.
    3. Carpenito-Moyet LJ. Nursing Diagnosis Application to Clinical practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2004.
    4. Creason NS. Clinical validation of nursing diagnoses. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications. 2004;15(43):123-32. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000.
    6. Fehring RJ. Validating diagnostic labels: Standardized methodology. In: Hurley M E. Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the sixth Conference. Mosby: St. Louis; 1986, p. 183-90.
    7. Fehring RJ. Metods to validate nursing diagnoses. Heart and Lung: the jurnal of critical care. 1987;16(6):625-9.
    8. Fehring RJ. The Fehring Model. In: Caroll-Johnson RM et al. Classification of Nursing Diagnoses: Procceding of the Tenth Conference NANDA. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1994, p. 55-62.
    9. Fick DM, Hodo DM, Lawrence F, Inouye SK. Recognizing delirium superimposed on dementia: assessing nurses' knowledge using case vignettes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2007;33(2):40-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State a Practical method for Grading the Cognitive State of Patients for the Clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975,12(3):189-98. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Gerdner LD, Hall GR et al. Chronic confusion. In: Maas LM et al. Nursing Care of Older Adults: Diagnosis, Outcomes & Interventions. Missouri USA: Mosby; 2001, p. 421-41.
    12. Gordon M. Nursing Diagnosis: Process and Application. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982.
    13. Gordon M. Nursing Diagnosis. Process and Application. New York: Mosby_Year Book Inc.; 1994, 421 p.
    14. Gordon M, Sweeney MA. Metodologic problems and issues in identifying and standardizing nursing diagnosis. Advenced in Nursing Science. 1979;14(2):53-64. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Grant, JS, Davis, LT. Selection and use of context experts in instrument development. Research in Nursing Health. 1997;20(3): 269-74. Go to original source...
    16. Guirao-Goris JA, Duarte-Climents G. The Expert Nurse profil and Diagnostic Content validity of Sedentary Lifestyle: The Spanish validation. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications. 2007;18(3):84-92. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Holmanová E, Žiaková K, Čáp J. Metodologické poznámky k problematike validizácie ošetrovateľských diagnóz. Kontakt. 2006;VIII(1):25-9. Go to original source...
    18. Horáček J, Švestka J. Demence. In: Höschl C, Libiger J, Švestka J. Psychiatrie. Praha: Tigis; 2002, s. 313.
    19. Hoskins L. Clinical Validation Metodologies for Nursing Diagnosis Research. In: Classification of Nursing Diagnosis: Proceedings of the Eigth conference NANDA. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1989, p. 126-31.
    20. Hoskins L. How to do a Validation Stady. In: Classification of Nursing Diagnosis: Proccedings of the twelfth conference NANDA. Glendale: Cinahl; 1997, p. 79-86.
    21. Hudson S, Ratchford J. Confused about Confusion? National Center of continuing Education, 2011. [online]. [cit. 2013-08-08]. Dostupné zhttp//www.nursece.com/online_course.php?id=9178
    22. ICD-10. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. WHO; 1992, 362 p.
    23. Jirák R. Demence. In: Höschl C, Libiger J, Švestka J. Psychiatrie. Praha: Tigis; 2002, s. 468.
    24. Kim MJ. Integrated methods for nursing diagnosis research. In: Caroll-Johnson RM. Classification of Nursing Diagnoses: Procedings of the Ninth Conference NANDA. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1991, p. 201-6.
    25. Kolibáš E. Príručka klinickej psychiatrie. Nové Zámky: Psychoprof.; 2010.
    26. Lunney M. Perspective. The Need for International Nursing Diagnosis Research and Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classification. 2008;19(1):28-34. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Lunney M, Karlik BA, Kiss M, Murphy P. Accuracy of diagnoses of psychosocial responses. Nursing Diagnosis. 1997;8(4):157-66. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Medzinárodná klasifikácia chorôb MKCH-10. Národné centrum zdravotníckych informácií; 2006. [online]. [cit. 2013-01-08]. Dostupné http://data.nczisk.sk/old/infozz/mkch-10/
    29. NINR. National Institute of Nursing Research. Confusion; 2006. [online]. [cit. 2013-08-08]. Dostupné z http://www.ninr.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/87C83B44-6FC6-4183-96FE-67E00623ACE0/4766/Chap.pdf
    30. Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification 2012-2014. Ed. Herdman TH. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
    31. Ried S, Dassen T. Chronic confusion, Dementia, and Impaired Environmental Interpretation Syndrome: A concept Comparison. Nursing Diagnosis. 2000;11(2): 51-9. Go to original source...
    32. Ried S, Gutzmann H. The nursing phenomenon "chronic confusion" in relation to the diagnosis "dementia". Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2003;36(4):297-303.
    33. Tabaková M, Zeleníková R, Kolegarova V. Preťaženie opatrovateľa - obsahová validizácia ošetrovateľskej diagnózy v Slovenskej a Českej republike. Profese on-line. 2011;4(2):27-32. Go to original source...
    34. Tomagová M, Bóriková I. Validácia ošetrovateľskej diagnózy chronická zmätenosť. Ošetřovatelství a porodní asistence. 2011;2(2):185-9.
    35. Tomagová M, Bóriková I. Validácia ošetrovateľskej diagnózy chronická zmätenosť v slovenskej a českej ošetrovateľskej praxi. Profese on-line. 2012;5(1):25-30. Go to original source...
    36. Vyhláška MZ SR č. 306/2005 Z. z., ktorou sa ustanovuje Zoznam sesterských diagnóz.
    37. Whitley GG. Concept Analysis as Foundational to Nursing Diagnosis Research. Nursing Diagnosis. 1995;6(2):91-2. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    38. Whitley GG. Processes and Methodologies for Research Validation of Nursing Diagnoses. Nursing Diagnosis. 1999;10(1):5-14. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    39. Zeleníková, R, Žiaková K. Validačné štúdie ošetrovateľských diagnóz. Ošetřovatelství a porodní asistence. 2010a;1(1):1-9.
    40. Zeleníková R, Žiaková K. Využitie Fehringových modelov pri validizácii ošetrovateľských diagnóz. Profese on-line. 2010b;3(2):117-28. Go to original source...
    41. Zeleníková R, Žiaková K. Hodnotenie definujúcich charakteristík ošetrovateľskej diagnózy Deficit vedomostí. Profese on-line. 2012;5(1):35-9. Go to original source...
    42. Zeleníková R, Žiaková K, Čáp J, Jarošová D, Vrublová Y. Návrh kritérií výberu expertov pre validizáciu ošetrovateľských diagnóz v ČR a SR. Kontakt. 2010;12(4):407-13. Go to original source...
    43. Zeleníková R, Žiaková K, Sikorová L. Deficit objemu telových tekutín hodnotený sestrami podľa diagnostických znakov ošetrovateľskej diagnózy. Praktický lékař. 2011;91(12):731-4.

    Return to the content