Objectives To explore the challenges of secondary use of routinely collected data for analyzing nursing-sensitive outcomes in Austrian acute care hospitals.Method A convergent parallel mixed methods design was perform...Objectives To explore the challenges of secondary use of routinely collected data for analyzing nursing-sensitive outcomes in Austrian acute care hospitals.Method A convergent parallel mixed methods design was performed.We conducted a quantitative representative survey with nursing managers from 32 Austrian general acute care hospitals and 11 qualitative semi-structured interviews with nursing quality management experts.Both results were first analyzed independently and afterward merged in the discussion.Results On average,76%of nursing documentation is already electronically supported in the surveyed Austrian hospitals.However,existing nursing data is seldom used for secondary purposes such as nursing-sensitive outcome analyses.This is due to four major reasons:First,hospitals often do not have a data strategy for the secondary use of routine data.Second,hospitals partly lack the use of standardized and uniform nursing terminologies,especially for nursing evaluation.Third,routine nursing data is often not documented correctly and completely.Fourth,data on nursing-sensitive outcomes is usually collected in specific documentation forms not integrated into routine documentation.Conclusion The awareness of the possibilities for secondary use of nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses in Austrian hospitals is still in its infancy.Therefore,nursing staff and nursing management must be trained to understand how to collect and process nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses.Further studies would be interesting in order to determine the factors that influence the decision-making processes for the secondary use of nursing data for outcome analyses.展开更多
INTRODUCTION by Ka-kit Hui, M.D. Because we recognize the clinical, educational, and cultural importance of translation and terminology in Chinese medicine, we feel that it is imperative to understand the perspectives...INTRODUCTION by Ka-kit Hui, M.D. Because we recognize the clinical, educational, and cultural importance of translation and terminology in Chinese medicine, we feel that it is imperative to understand the perspectives of all concerned parties. This article thus addresses the issue of terminology standardization in English language Chinese medical publications from the point of view of multiple stakeholders in this field at the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine. A great deal of discussion about the issue has arisen among faculty and staff at the Center, prompted especially by my invitation by the World Health Organization （W.H.O.） Western Pacific Region to review the draft document of English terminology standards in Chinese medicine. As the discussion within the Center reflects the wider debates within the field, we would like to address the topic by inviting seven Center staff and faculty, all of whom have been trained as clinicians and teachers rather than translators or linguistic scholars, to formally provide their insights into the matter. Sonya Pritzker, M.S., M.A., L.Ac. will first offer a brief background derived from her presentation at the original Grand Rounds at the Center upon which the current article is based. Staff and faculty from the Center then offer their contributions to the discussion, after which I discuss participants＇ views and conclude by suggesting that a biomedical interface syste in combination with a system of open standards offers a possible solution to the several divergent views brought up by the terminology debates.展开更多
Center staff and faculty below provide their commentary and perspective on the two major issues （single standards versus plural terms and the basis for standards） comprising the terminology standardization debate as...Center staff and faculty below provide their commentary and perspective on the two major issues （single standards versus plural terms and the basis for standards） comprising the terminology standardization debate as outlined by Sonya Pritzker above. Where most or all members of the discussion agree, that perspective is summarized. Members with distinct or outstanding positions on an issue are offered the opportunity to describe their viewpoint in their own words.展开更多
文摘Objectives To explore the challenges of secondary use of routinely collected data for analyzing nursing-sensitive outcomes in Austrian acute care hospitals.Method A convergent parallel mixed methods design was performed.We conducted a quantitative representative survey with nursing managers from 32 Austrian general acute care hospitals and 11 qualitative semi-structured interviews with nursing quality management experts.Both results were first analyzed independently and afterward merged in the discussion.Results On average,76%of nursing documentation is already electronically supported in the surveyed Austrian hospitals.However,existing nursing data is seldom used for secondary purposes such as nursing-sensitive outcome analyses.This is due to four major reasons:First,hospitals often do not have a data strategy for the secondary use of routine data.Second,hospitals partly lack the use of standardized and uniform nursing terminologies,especially for nursing evaluation.Third,routine nursing data is often not documented correctly and completely.Fourth,data on nursing-sensitive outcomes is usually collected in specific documentation forms not integrated into routine documentation.Conclusion The awareness of the possibilities for secondary use of nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses in Austrian hospitals is still in its infancy.Therefore,nursing staff and nursing management must be trained to understand how to collect and process nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses.Further studies would be interesting in order to determine the factors that influence the decision-making processes for the secondary use of nursing data for outcome analyses.
文摘INTRODUCTION by Ka-kit Hui, M.D. Because we recognize the clinical, educational, and cultural importance of translation and terminology in Chinese medicine, we feel that it is imperative to understand the perspectives of all concerned parties. This article thus addresses the issue of terminology standardization in English language Chinese medical publications from the point of view of multiple stakeholders in this field at the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine. A great deal of discussion about the issue has arisen among faculty and staff at the Center, prompted especially by my invitation by the World Health Organization （W.H.O.） Western Pacific Region to review the draft document of English terminology standards in Chinese medicine. As the discussion within the Center reflects the wider debates within the field, we would like to address the topic by inviting seven Center staff and faculty, all of whom have been trained as clinicians and teachers rather than translators or linguistic scholars, to formally provide their insights into the matter. Sonya Pritzker, M.S., M.A., L.Ac. will first offer a brief background derived from her presentation at the original Grand Rounds at the Center upon which the current article is based. Staff and faculty from the Center then offer their contributions to the discussion, after which I discuss participants＇ views and conclude by suggesting that a biomedical interface syste in combination with a system of open standards offers a possible solution to the several divergent views brought up by the terminology debates.
文摘Center staff and faculty below provide their commentary and perspective on the two major issues （single standards versus plural terms and the basis for standards） comprising the terminology standardization debate as outlined by Sonya Pritzker above. Where most or all members of the discussion agree, that perspective is summarized. Members with distinct or outstanding positions on an issue are offered the opportunity to describe their viewpoint in their own words.
