ArticleBMC nursing2026
Standardized nursing terminologies in primary care: a qualitative approach to the experience of nursing professionals.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandardized Nursing Terminologies are used to describe diagnoses, interventions, and care outcomes. This study explores the use of Standardized Nursing Terminologies among Primary Care nurses, particularly in the context of frailty syndrome, and identifies barriers to and facilitators of their integration into clinical practice.
methodsDescriptive-interpretive qualitative study with a phenomenological approach. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to select 33 Primary Care nurses involved in healthcare, teaching, management, and research in Spain. Three focus groups and fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2024. The qualitative data were transcribed, aggregated, analysed, and interpreted using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree 3 main themes related to the use of Standardized Nursing Terminologies were identified: (1) The value of a common language: professional autonomy; (2) From standardization to action: integration into clinical practice; and (3) Skills-building: towards Nursology. Participants described language standardization as a driving force for professional development and the use of real-world data in research. The NANDA-I, NIC, and NOC terminologies were the most widely used; however, they generated certain ambivalence due to their complexity, cost, and need for regular updates, and were seldom used in clinical practice. Study participants identified several facilitators of their use, such as their usefulness in structuring clinical reasoning, improving continuity of care, planning resources, and addressing complex care. They also identified barriers, primarily insufficient training, poor usability, scant enforcement, bureaucratic approach, and the absence of a clearly defined organizational strategy. In the context of frailty syndrome, Standardized Nursing Terminologies were reported to promote comprehensive care, although their use was limited, training scarce, and evidence of their impact lacking. Participants also referred to the role of Nursology in fostering research in person-centred, outcome-oriented care, and highlighted leadership as key to strengthening a professional identity based on a reflective and thoughtful-critical approach to nursing.
conclusionsStandardized Nursing Terminologies hold significant potential to transform nursing care; however, their integration into Primary Care remains limited. Frailty syndrome illustrates the gap between this potential and its practical implementation. Bridging this gap requires targeted training strategies, strong institutional support, and leadership committed to fostering person-centred, evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.