I get that we need(ed) a standardized, agreed upon language for research and publishing and it's handy to have all of it (diagnoses, outcomes and actions) codified in EMR for the purposes of our own retrospective data collections. However, these (the 3N's) belong to NANDA-I. (To be honest... I don't know how anyone "owns" words, but there it is.) So, we may "think" them, we just can't publish and/or use them w/out permission. (I cannot publish a catalogue of the 3N's, for example.)
So... when we try to teach students clinical reasoning, why do we constrict and restrict them to using the 3N's?
1) They won't remember it.
2) They can't take it with them
3) These tedious lists and labels are not part of the lingua franca of bedside nursing.
Yet we put students through the wringer in classes and assignments forcing them to use this language to express their thoughts about patient care.
Featured Replies
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
I get that we need(ed) a standardized, agreed upon language for research and publishing and it's handy to have all of it (diagnoses, outcomes and actions) codified in EMR for the purposes of our own retrospective data collections. However, these (the 3N's) belong to NANDA-I. (To be honest... I don't know how anyone "owns" words, but there it is.) So, we may "think" them, we just can't publish and/or use them w/out permission. (I cannot publish a catalogue of the 3N's, for example.)
So... when we try to teach students clinical reasoning, why do we constrict and restrict them to using the 3N's?
1) They won't remember it.
2) They can't take it with them
3) These tedious lists and labels are not part of the lingua franca of bedside nursing.
Yet we put students through the wringer in classes and assignments forcing them to use this language to express their thoughts about patient care.