Nursing diagnoses are described by definition as the basis for selection of interventions to achieve health outcomes. Processes used to link diagnostic judgments with desired outcomes and interventions can be holistic or reductionistic. A model of clinical inference is presented to illustrate the interrelated nature of judgments about diagnoses, desired outcomes, and interventions. Implications for development of diagnostic and taxonomic tools to guide holistic judgments are explored.
BennerP. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison–Wesley.
2.
BircherA. (1982). The concept of nursing diagnosis. In KimM.J. and MoritzD. (Ed.). Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the third and fourth national conferences (pp. 30–43). New York: McGraw–Hill.
3.
BircherA. (1986). Nursing diagnosis: Where does the conceptual framework fit. In HurleyM.E., (Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the sixth national conference (pp. 66–97). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
4.
CarnevaliD.L. (1984). The diagnostic reasoning process. In CarnevaliD.L.MitchellP.H.WoodsN.F., and TannerC.A., (Eds.). Diagnostic reasoning in nursing. (pp. 25–56). Philadelphia: Lip-pincott.
5.
CarnevaliD.PatrickM. (1979). Nursing management for the elderly. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
6.
DreyfusH.L.DreyfusS.E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.
7.
DurandM.PrinceR. (1966). Nursing diagnosis: Process and decision. Nursing Forum5 (4), 51–64.
8.
FeildL. (1982). Responses of clinical specialists to the Unitary Man Framework. In KimM.J.MoritzD.A., (Eds.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the third and fourth national conferences (pp. 264–269). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
GardnerH. (1984). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
10.
GordonM. (1987). The nurse as a thinking practitioner. In HannahK.J.ReimerM.MillsW.C.LetourneauS. (Eds.), Clinical judgement and decision making: The future with nursing diagnosis (pp. 8–17). New York: John Wiley.
11.
GouldS.J. (1983). Hen's teeth and horse's toes: Further reflections in natural history. New York: W.W. Norton.
12.
HammondK.R. (1966). Clinical Inference in nursing: A psychologist's viewpoint. (1966), Nursing Research, 15 (1), 27–37.
HoskinsL. (1991). What is the focus of Taxonomy II? Nursing diagnosis axes. In Carroll-JohnsonR.M. (Ed.). Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
15.
MinskyM. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. (p. 212). In WinstonP.H., (F:d.). The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
NANDA (1990). Taxonomy I revised St Louis, MO:Author.
17.
RoyC. (1984). Framework for classification systems development: Progress and issues. In KimM.J.McFarlandG.K.McLaneA.M., (Eds.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the fifth national conference (pp. 26–39). St Louis, MO: Mosby.
18.
SchankR.C. (1975). The primitive acts of conceptual dependency. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. (Available from the Association of Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA).
TannerC.A. (1984). Factors influencing the diagnostic process. In CarnevaliD.L.MitchellP.H.WoodsN.F., and TannerC.A., (Eds.). Diagnostic reasoning in nursing. (pp. 61–82). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
21.
WarrenJ. (in press). Implications of introducing axes into a classification system. In Carroll-JohnsonR.M. (Ed.). Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
