• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.243-254
• /
• 2004

Purpose: The purpose of this study was cross-mapping unique nursing statements which were identified in the nursing records of patients with six most common cancers in Korea with the standardized nursing languages of NANDA, NIC, NOC and ICNP. Method: The subjects were 72 nursing records which covered 1,502 admission days from August 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. They were the records of the patients of six most common cancers who were treated at the six 3rd level general hospitals in Busan and Daegu. The unique nursing statements were identified by dividing the statements from the nursing records into the single statements according to their meanings. For cross-mapping, identified unique nursing statements were classified as 'Data(D)' for the subjective, objective data of the patients and the other data such as treatment, admission, discharge, and residence of patient, 'Problem(P)' for nursing problem or diagnosis defined by the nurse's decision, 'Intervention(I)' for nursing intervention for problem solving, and 'Outcome(O)' for patient reaction and results of the provided nursing interventions. Unique nursing statements classified to D, P, I, O were cross-napped by using Microsoft Excel 2000. The statements of D were cross-mapped with ICNP Nursing phenomena, P with NANDA nursing diagnosis and ICNP nursing phenomena, I with NIC and ICNP nursing intervention, and O with NOC and ICNP nursing phenomena Result: The results of this study were as follows. 1. Number of unique nursing statements were 506 in the records of lung cancer patients (18.12%), 480 in stomach cancer(17.19%), 458 in liver cancer(16.40%), 456 in colon cancer (16.33), 457 in breast cancer (16.36%) and 436 in cervix cancer (15.60%). 2. The range of percentage of cross-mapped unique nursing statements with the standardized nursing languages were as follows: P with NANDA nursing diagnosis $87.50{\sim}100%$, I with NIC $59.72{\sim}74.43$, O with NOC $61.05{\sim}72.64%$, and D, P, I and O with ICNP $60.92{\sim}69.95%$. 3. Number of the standardized nursing languages identified in this study were 21(12.66%) from 155 NANDA nursing diagnosis, 76(15.64%) from 486 NIC Nursing interventions, 54(17.47%) from 260 NOC nursing outcomes, and 343(13.03%) from ICNP 2,634. Conclusions: By the results of this study, NANDA, NIC, NOC and ICNP were found that they can be used as the language systems for nursing record and nursing information system for cancer patients. But, further study on the unique nursing statements which were not cross-mapped with the standardized nursing language systems will be necessary.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.181-188
• /
• 2006

Purpose: The purpose of study was to determine differences in patient outcomes that exists in terms of Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) during hospital days of neurosurgical and respiratory patients. Method: Before starting clinical practicum, nursing students were received two hours' lecture on how to apply NOC to patient care plan and they were required to evaluate patient condition using NOC at the beginning and at the end of their clinical practicum. Data were extracted from 62 neurosurgical patients and 66 respiratory patients and analyzed by frequency and paired t-test. Results: The most frequently used NOC were Pain Level (37.1%), Mobility Level (25.8%), and Bowel Elimination (19.4%) in neurosurgical patients and Nutritional Status (37. 9%), Respiratory Status: Ventilation (37.9%) and Pain Level (25.8%) in respiratory patients. The numbers of outcomes used were 75 and 46 neurosurgical and respiratory patients respectively. During the hospital days, the level of patient outcomes increased significantly in all patient groups. Conclusion: The finding clearly suggests that nursing interventions make differences in patient outcomes and make contribution to the patient health achieved. To more effectively use NOC, however, nursing information system should be developed and included standardized nursing languages regarding nursing diagnoses and interventions.

• The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.332-346
• /
• 1999

간호학에서 간호업무를 이끌어갈 간호이론이(지식체) 필요하다는 생각은 20세기가 되면서부터 시작되었다. 하지만 아직도 간호학은 간호학 특유의 지식체가 부족하다는 지적을 받고 있다. 주된 이유는 간호 업무가 재대로 확인되지 않았고 간호업무를 이끌어갈 간호학 특유의 간호이론이 확실히 정립되지 않았기 때문이다. 따라서 간호가 독자적 학문으로서 인정받고 발전하기 위해서는 간호업무에 적용이 쉽고, 간호 업무에 바탕을 둔 간호이론의 개발이 필수적이다. 왜냐하면 간호 이론이 간호업무에 쉽게 적용됨으로서 간호학의 지식체가 발전할 뿐 아니라 환자 간호도 더욱 증진 될 수 있기 때문이다. 이 논문에서는 간호지식의 발전 단계를 시대적 순서와 배경을 덧붙여 고찰하였고 간호학에서 간호 분류체계가 발전하게 된 동기, 그리고 간호 분류체계가 환자 간호와 간호학의 이론개발과 발전에 어떻게 활용되는 가에 대해 서술하였다. 그리고 간호분류체계가 가지는 특성으로는 먼저 간호실무를 체계적으로 명명하고 분류함으로서 간호학에서 필요한 연구영역을 확인하게 하게 하고 간호학 고유의 지식체의 발전에 공헌하는 것 뿐 아니라 간호정보화 시스템의 개발, 다른 의료전문가들과의 효과적인 커뮤니케이션 수단 제공, 간호의 지속성을 유지, 그리고 간호의 효과성 연구에의 활용 등이 있다.

• Korean Journal of Adult Nursing
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.517-528
• /
• 2001

목적: 본 연구의 목적은 미국 아이오와 대학에서 개발된 Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC)을 사용하여 신경기계 병동과 정형외과 병동에 근무하는 간호사들이 가장 빈번히 수행하는 간호중재를 파악함으로서 이러한 부서의 간호중재 리스트를 개발하는데 있다. 그리고 확인된 간호중재의 리스트를 미국 간호협회의 핵심 간호중재 목록과 비교함으로써 양국간의 간호중재의 유사성과 차이를 비교함으로써 한국간호의 발전을 도모하는데 있다. 방법: 8개의3차병원 및 종합병원 근무하는 간호사에게 NIC을 번역하여 소개한 뒤 가장 자주 수행하는 간호중재 30개를 선택하게 하였다. 선택된 간호중재는 빈도와 백분율 이용하여 분석하였고 미국의 핵심간호 중재목록과 영역(domain)별, 분류군 (class)별로 비교하였다. 결과: 신경기계 병동은 30개의 간호중재를 정형외과 병동은 34개를 핵심간호중재로 확인하였다. 한국과 미국의 간호중재를 비교해본 결과 신경기계 병동의 간호중재와 미국American Association of Neuroscience Nurses (AANN) 의 핵심간호중재 목록과는 단지 5개의 간호중재가 일치하였지만 정형외과 병동의 간호중재목록은 미국의 National Association of orthopaedic Nurses (NAON) 의 핵심중재목록과 27개의 간호중재가 일치되어 더 많은 유사성을 나타내었다. 두 나라의 간호중재를 영역(domain)별로 비교해보면 한국 간호사의 간호중재는 미국간호단체의 핵심간호 중재 목록보다 신체적 간호에 보다 많은 편중을 보였다. 결론: 한국간호사의 간호중재가 신체적 간호중재에 집중되어 있으므로 환자간호에 보다 전인적인 간호중재가 수행될 수 있도록 노력해야 할 것이다. 그리고 본 연구를 통해 개발된 핵심 간호중재 목록은 병원의 간호정보시스템을 개발하는데 사용될 수 있으며, 간호지식의 확장이나 staffing, 간호 수가화, 그리고 궁극적으로는 간호의 효과성 연구를 자극할 수 있을 것이다.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.14
• /
• pp.6033-6038
• /
• 2015

Background: Experience of lung cancer includes negative impacts on both physical and psychological health. Pain is one of the negative experiences of lung cancer. Cognitive behavioral therapy techniques are often recommended as treatments for lung cancer pain. The objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy techniques in treating lung cancer pain. This review considered studies that included lung cancer patients who were required to 1) be at least 18 years old; 2) speak and read English or Thai; 3) have a life expectancy of at least two months; 4) experience daily cancer pain requiring an opioid medication; 5) have a positive response to opioid medication; 6) have "average or usual" pain between 4 and 7 on a scale of 0-10 for the day before the clinic visit or for a typical day; and 7) able to participate in a pain evaluation and treatment program. This review considered studies to examine interventions for use in treatment of pain in lung cancer patients, including: biofeedback, cognitive/attentional distraction, imagery, hypnosis, and meditation. Any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for pain specifically in lung cancer patients were included. In the absence of RCTs, quasi-experimental designs were reviewed for possible conclusion in a narrative summary. Outcome measures were pain intensity before and after cognitive behavioural therapy techniques. The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished literature. A three-step search was utilised by using identified keywords and text term. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL was undertaken followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the article. A second search using all the identified keywords and index terms was then undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles were searched for additional studies. Searches were conducted during January 1991- March 2014 limited to English and Thai languages with no date restriction. Materials and Methods: All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality by three reviewers using a standardized critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Three reviewers extracted data independently, using a standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Ideally for quantitative data meta-analysis was to be conducted where all results were subject to double data entry. Odds ratios (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals were to be calculated for analysis and heterogeneity was to be assessed using the standard Chi-square. Where statistical pooling was not possible the finding were be presented in narrative form. Results: There were no studies located that met the inclusion requirements of this review. There were also no text and opinion pieces that were specific to cognitive behavioral therapy techniques pain and lung cancer patients.Conclusions: There is currently no evidence available to determine the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy techniques for pain in lung cancer patients.