Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 2000 Mar;9(1):6–13. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.1.6

Development of an audit instrument for nursing care plans in the patient record

C Bjorvell 1, I Thorell-Ekstrand 1, R Wredling 1
PMCID: PMC1743497  PMID: 10848373

Abstract

Objectives—To develop, validate, and test the reliability of an audit instrument that measures the extent to which patient records describe important aspects of nursing care.

Material—Twenty records from each of three hospital wards were collected and audited. The auditors were registered nurses with a knowledge of nursing documentation in accordance with the VIPS model—a model designed to structure nursing documentation. (VIPS is an acronym formed from the Swedish words for wellbeing, integrity, prevention, and security.)

Methods—An audit instrument was developed by determining specific criteria to be met. The audit questions were aimed at revealing the content of the patient for nursing assessment, nursing diagnosis, planned interventions, and outcome. Each of the 60 records was reviewed by the three auditors independently and the reliability of the instrument was tested by calculating the inter-rater reliability coefficient. Content validity was tested by using an expert panel and calculating the content validity ratio. The criterion related validity was estimated by the correlation between the score of the Cat-ch-Ing instrument and the score of an earlier developed and used audit instrument. The results were then tested by using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

Results—The new audit instrument, named Cat-ch-Ing, consists of 17 questions designed to judge the nursing documentation. Both quantity and quality variables are judged on a rating scale from zero to three, with a maximum score of 80. The inter-rater reliability coefficients were 0.98, 0.98, and 0.92, respectively for each group of 20 records, the content validity ratio ranged between 0.20 and 1.0 and the criterion related validity showed a significant correlation of r = 0.68 (p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.76) between the two audit instruments.

Conclusion—The Cat-ch-Ing instrument has proved to be a valid and reliable audit instrument for nursing records when the VIPS model is used as the basis of the documentation.

(Quality in Health Care 2000;9:6–13)

Key Words: audit instrument; nursing care plans; quality assurance

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (183.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Black S. L., Taunton R. L., Thomas J. A., Krampitz S. D. Evaluation of a scale to assess nurses' attitudes toward written care plans. Appl Nurs Res. 1989 May;2(2):92–93. doi: 10.1016/s0897-1897(89)80052-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988 Sep 23;260(12):1743–1748. doi: 10.1001/jama.260.12.1743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Edwards N., Pickard L., Van Berkel C. Community health nursing audit: issues encountered during the selection and application of an audit instrument. Public Health Nurs. 1991 Mar;8(1):3–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.1991.tb00735.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ehnfors M., Smedby B. Nursing care as documented in patient records. Scand J Caring Sci. 1993;7(4):209–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.1993.tb00206.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ehnfors M., Thorell-Ekstrand I., Ehrenberg A. Towards basic nursing information in patient records. Vard Nord Utveckl Forsk. 1991 Fall-Winter;11(3-4):12–31. doi: 10.1177/010740839101100303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ehrenberg A., Ehnfors M. Patient problems, needs, and nursing diagnoses in Swedish nursing home records. Nurs Diagn. 1999 Apr-Jun;10(2):65–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618x.1999.tb00028.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ehrenberg A., Ehnfors M., Thorell-Ekstrand I. Nursing documentation in patient records: experience of the use of the VIPS model. J Adv Nurs. 1996 Oct;24(4):853–867. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.26325.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gabbay J., McNicol M. C., Spiby J., Davies S. C., Layton A. J. What did audit achieve? Lessons from preliminary evaluation of a year's medical audit. BMJ. 1990 Sep 15;301(6751):526–529. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6751.526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Griffiths J., Hutchings W. The wider implications of an audit of care plan documentation. J Clin Nurs. 1999 Jan;8(1):57–65. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00217.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grobe S. J., Hughes L. C. The conceptual validity of a taxonomy of nursing interventions. J Adv Nurs. 1993 Dec;18(12):1942–1961. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18121942.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hansebo G., Kihlgren M., Ljunggren G. Review of nursing documentation in nursing home wards - changes after intervention for individualized care. J Adv Nurs. 1999 Jun;29(6):1462–1473. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01034.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Harvey G. An evaluation of approaches to assessing the quality of nursing care using (predetermined) quality assurance tools. J Adv Nurs. 1991 Mar;16(3):277–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1991.tb01650.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Heath D. A. Random review of hospital patient records. BMJ. 1990 Mar 10;300(6725):651–652. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6725.651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Honnas R., Zlotnick C. Quality improvement in action: development of a tool. J Nurs Care Qual. 1995 Jul;9(4):72–77. doi: 10.1097/00001786-199507000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kramer M. Standard 4: nursing care plans. . . power to the patient. J Nurs Adm. 1972 Sep-Oct;2(5):29–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Manfredi C. Reliability and validity of the Phaneuf Nursing Audit. West J Nurs Res. 1986 May;8(2):168–180. doi: 10.1177/019394598600800204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mashru M., Lant A. Interpractice audit of diagnosis and management of hypertension in primary care: educational intervention and review of medical records. BMJ. 1997 Mar 29;314(7085):942–946. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7085.942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. McElroy A., Corben V., McLeish K. Developing care plan documentation: an action research project. J Nurs Manag. 1995 Jul;3(4):193–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.1995.tb00076.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nordström G., Gardulf A. Nursing documentation in patient records. Scand J Caring Sci. 1996;10(1):27–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.1996.tb00306.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Shaw C. D. Criterion based audit. BMJ. 1990 Mar 10;300(6725):649–651. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6725.649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sparrow S., Robinson J. The use and limitations of Phaneuf's Nursing Audit. J Adv Nurs. 1992 Dec;17(12):1479–1488. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb02821.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ventura M. R. Correlation between the quality patient care scale and the Phaneuf audit. Int J Nurs Stud. 1980;17(3):155–162. doi: 10.1016/0020-7489(80)90040-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Webb C., Pontin D. Evaluating the introduction of primary nursing: the use of a care plan audit. J Clin Nurs. 1997 Sep;6(5):395–401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES