RNOtherNursing open2024

Clinical Validation of the Defining Characteristics of the Nursing Diagnosis 'Activity Intolerance' in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Diana Isabel Cáceres Rivera, Luz Mileyde Jaimes Rojas, Luisa Yaneth Cristancho Zambrano and 3 others

PMID 39636748

WHAT IT FOUND

In hospitalised patients with acute coronary syndrome, generalised weakness, discomfort on exertion and ECG changes were the most common markers of activity intolerance.

Nurse agreement was high for weakness, moderate for ECG changes and poor for discomfort on exertion.

Key findings

01Generalised weakness was a major defining characteristic, recorded by two nurses in 80.56% and 78.70% of patients, with agreement of 0.885.

02Exertional discomfort was major, recorded in 72.07% and 75.68% of patients, but agreement was poor/mild at 0.207.

03ECG changes were major, recorded in 71.17% and 68.47% of patients, with moderate agreement of 0.594.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was done at a single centre, so the findings may not apply to other hospitals or patient groups. Participants were selected consecutively, not randomly, and the sample size was recalculated from 208 to 106, so the estimates may be less stable. Patients who were hemodynamically unstable, had altered mental state, or could not communicate were excluded, so the results do not show how these characteristics appear in those patients. Nurse agreement was poor for exertional discomfort, so this characteristic may be hard to record consistently.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that a nurse-identified activity intolerance diagnosis changes ACS outcomes or that these characteristics are equally reliable. It was a single-centre validation study, and agreement for exertional discomfort was poor.

Read it on PubMed →