ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to revise the KPCS-1 and to standardize the three patient classification systems for general ward, ICU and NICU. The actual utilization of the KPCS-1 score and each nursing activity was evaluated and the relationships between KPCS-1 score and nursing related variables were reviewed. METHODS: The 47,711 KPCS-1 scores of 6,931 patients who discharged from 1st to 30th April 2017 were analyzed and the statistical significance between KPCS-1 score and nursing related variables was reviewed by Generalized Estimating Equation. The revision of the KPCS-1 was carried out by Partial Least Square model. The 3 patient classification systems (KPCS-1,KPCSC and KPCSN) were standardized by professional reviews. RESULTS: KPCS-1 was a valid instrument to express nursing condition adequately and was revised as a new version which has 34 nursing activity items. The names and terminologies of pre-existing 3 patient classification systems developed by KHNA were standardized as KPCS-GW, KPCS-ICU, KPCS-NICU. CONCLUSION: KPCS-1 was a valid instrument to represent diverse nursing conditions precisely and was revised as a 34-item KPCS-GW. The terminologies of the other patient classification systems by KHNA were standardized as KPCS-ICU and KPCS-NICU.
Subject(s)
Humans , Classification , Nursing , Patients' RoomsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the abilities of electronic nursing records, which are based on standard nursing terminology, and paper-based nursing records to support the nursing process. METHODS: The nursing records of 38 pairs of inpatients admitted to a gynecology nursing unit were selected. The data from the paper records were obtained manually by a chart review as single statement units. The electronic records were extracted from a computerized system. The statements were categorized using the NANDA diagnosis and the modified Clinical Care Classification. Based on a semantic analysis of the components of the nursing process, the completeness of the nursing records was classified into complete and incomplete patterns according to the presence and relevancy of the assessment, the diagnosis, the intervention and the outcome. RESULTS: The numbers of nursing diagnoses used and the unique nursing diagnoses were both higher in the electronic records than those in the paper records. The number of statements of nursing assessments/outcomes, and nursing interventions was 1.4-fold higher in the electronic records than that in the paper records respectively. The proportion of complete patterns of the nursing process was 3.4% in the paper records and 25.7% in the electronic records. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that electronic records are better than paper records to support the nursing process in terms of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of nursing documentation.