PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9014390

Nursing Interventions Classification implementation issues in five test sites.

J M Daly·P Button·C M Prophet·M Clarke·I Androwich
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The authors describe the implementation of the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), a standardized nursing language in five test sites: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Genesis Medical Center, Davenport, Iowa; Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; Oaknoll Retirement Residence, Iowa City, Iowa; and The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. A description of NIC is provided along with a discussion of implementation issues and recommendations for implementation.

Explore related subjects

Data CollectionDatabase Management SystemsHospital Information SystemsHumansNursing CareNursing ResearchNursing StaffTerminology as TopicUnited StatesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Daly, P Button, C M Prophet, M Clarke, I Androwich. Nursing Interventions Classification implementation issues in five test sites.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9014390/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

CONTEXT: Selecting peer reviewers who will provide high-quality reviews is a central task of editors of biomedical journals. OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of reviewers for a general medical journal who produce high-quality reviews and to describe the characteristics of a good review, particularly in terms of the time spent reviewing and turnaround time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Surveys of reviewers of the 420 manuscripts submitted to BMJ between January and June 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review quality was assessed independently by 2 editors and by the corresponding author using a newly developed 7-item review quality instrument. RESULTS: Of the 420 manuscripts, 345 (82%) had 2 reviews completed, for a total of 690 reviews. Authors' assessments of review quality were available for 507 reviews. The characteristics of reviewers had little association with the quality of the reviews they produced (explaining only 8% of the variation), regardless of whether editors or authors defined the quality of the review. In a logistic regression analysis, the only significant factor associated with higher-quality ratings by both editors and authors was reviewers trained in epidemiology or statistics. Younger age also was an independent predictor for editors' quality assessments, while reviews performed by reviewers who were members of an editorial board were rated of poorer quality by authors. Review quality increased with time spent on a review, up to 3 hours but not beyond. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of reviewers we studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews. Reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1998

A comparison of the opinions of experts and readers as to what topics a general medical journal (JAMA) should address.

CONTEXT: Journal editors are responsible to many publics, and their choices of articles to publish are a frequent source of dispute. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent of agreement between topics identified by experts and by JAMA readers as most important for publication. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Modified Delphi process of polling of JAMA Editorial Board members and senior staff (ie, experts) in 1996, and masked direct mail survey of a stratified sample of JAMA readers in late 1996 and early 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement between experts and readers on the topics most important for JAMA to deal with in 1997. RESULTS: Of 55 experts polled, the 40 respondents (73% response rate) proposed 178 topics. Editing to combine similar topics left 73. The same 55 persons were asked to stratify all 73 alphabetically arranged topics on a scale of 1 to 5 (85% [47/55] response rate). They were then given the results of this ballot and asked to vote again (76% [42/55] response rate). Of the 55 experts, 40 attending the annual editorial board meeting were given all results; 39 attendees voted on the final topics. In response to the mail survey, a single pass of the same 73 topics yielded a response rate of 41.6% (208 returns). Nonresponders were roughly equivalent to responders demographically. Readers agreed with the experts on only 3 of the top 10 subjects: managed care, cancer, and aging. CONCLUSION: Expert opinion and the opinion of readers as to what JAMA should emphasize vary widely.

Data Collection↗