1) Nursing diagnoses do not "facilitate communications between nurses." No nurse has ever given me a n.d. during report in clinicals, and if one did say, "reduced cardiac output", the coming on duty nurse would need to know why - she'd need the medical diagnosis.
2) Doctors think they're foolishness. One told me, "just between us (nurses and doctors) you can use the medical diagnosis." I'd never tell a doctor a patient had a knowledge deficit, I'd say the pt. did not understand or was worried about the disease or the procedure.
3) One of my texts says that saying "The patient is unhappy and worried about health" is not scientific, but "Ineffective coping r/t knowledge deficit regarding disease treatment" is scientific. Now suppose the patient's been diagnosed with cancer, is coping as effectively as anyone could, understands the treatment, but is still naturally worried and unhappy?
How could something totally inaccurate be more scientific than something accurate? Jargon doesn't make science.
4) We're not supposed to relate the n.d. to a medical diagnosis. So I can't say Reduced cardiac output r/t to congestive heart failure. But according to Rodgers's care plan book I can say r/t decreased myocardial contractility. Isn't that pretty much the definition of heart failure?
What if I want to relate to increased afterload? If BP was high, I could aeb BP but what if BP is normal because of meds? Can I aeb the meds?
Even my Iggy text relates all sorts of diabetes n.d's to "diabetic neuropathy." Hey, Iggy, that's a medical diagnosis. We have to say "sensory nerve dysfunction" but that's just a less precise way of saying diabetic neuropathy.
***
As far as I'm concerned, nursing diagnoses are nothing more than the carving out of fiefdoms by academic and political hacks. How the h-e-double toothpicks did they take over a profession which by its nature sensible and practical? Nurses don't have any reason to make pointless hoops to jump through - they've got too much to deal with already.
The End of a long vent. Sigh.