This theoretical and reflective study aimed to assess the contribution of the ISO/TR 12300:2016 document for the mapping of nursing terminology. The referred document and related articles were used as an empirical framework. The study analyzed the content of the document, highlighting cardinality and equivalence principles. The standard presents conceptual and operational basis for mapping, with cardinality and equivalence as the support for the categorization of cross-terminology mapping in the area of nursing. Cardinality verifies candidate target terms to represent the source term, while the equivalence degree scale checks semantic correspondence. Among the principles included in the ISO/TR 12300:2016, cardinality and equivalence contribute to the accurate representation of the results of the cross-terminology mapping process and its use should decrease inconsistencies.

Objective: Identify workflow factors in the operating room and their implications, which influence nurses' decision making. Method: Integrative review of the literature conducted through searches in the databases: Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences; Nursing Database; Pubmed; Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The results were organized into factors related to positive, negative and positive and negative implications. Results: The sample of 18 articles included examples of factors with positive implications, such as preoperative data collection, negative outcomes, such as lack of human, material and structural resources, and positive and negative outcomes, as preparation for certification. Conclusions: Factors that influence the decision-making process of nurses are associated to different conditions: client- related conditions and those conditions that go beyond the domain and organization of the surgical environment.

Background Cross-mapping establishes equivalence between terms from different terminology systems, which is useful for interoperability, updated terminological versions, and reuse of terms. Due to the number of terms to be mapped, this work can be extensive, tedious, and thorough, and it is susceptible to errors; this can be minimized by automated processes, which use computational tools. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the results of manual and automated term mapping processes. Methods In this descriptive, quantitative study, we used the results of two mapping processes as an empirical basis: manual, which used 2638 terms of nurses’ records from a university hospital in southern Brazil and the International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP); and automated, which used the same university hospital terms and the primitive terms of the ICNP through MappICNP, an algorithm based on rules of natural language processing. The two processes were compared via equality and exclusivity assessments of new terms of the automated process and of candidate terms. Results The automated process mapped 569/2638 (21.56%) of the source bank’s terms as identical, and the manual process mapped 650/2638 (24.63%) as identical. Regarding new terms, the automated process mapped 1031/2638 (39.08%) of the source bank’s terms as new, while the manual process mapped 1251 (47.42%). In particular, manual mapping identified 101/2638 (3.82%) terms as identical and 429 (16.26%) as new, whereas the automated process identified 20 (0.75%) terms as identical and 209 (7.92%) as new. Of the 209 terms mapped as new by the automated process, it was possible to establish an equivalence with ICNP terms in 48 (23.0%) cases. An analysis of the candidate terms offered by the automated process to the 429 new terms mapped exclusively by the manual process resulted in 100 (23.3%) candidates that had a semantic relationship with the source term. Conclusions The automated and manual processes map identical and new terms in similar ways and can be considered complementary. Direct identification of identical terms and the offering of candidate terms through the automated process facilitate and enhance the results of the mapping; confirmation of the precision of the automated mapping requires further analysis by researchers.

Objectives: to report the construction of a process model to support the decision making of operating room nurses to control the risk for perioperative positioning injury. Methods: experience report on a process model that helps nurses with decision making regarding clients at risk for perioperative positioning injury. By following the steps, it was possible to identify intrinsic and extrinsic variables of the literature and of the workflows of teams involved in the positioning of the client for surgery. The Business Process Model and Notation, the Bizagi Modeler software and terms from the International Classification for Nursing Practice were used in the model. Results: the experience allowed the observation of the knowledge integration between different areas, which enabled the process modeling and its validation. Conclusions: process modeling is an innovative option for the development of support systems for clinical nursing decisions.

Objetivo: Identificar características de estudos que validaram conceitos da Classificação Internacional para a Prática de Enfermagem. Método: Revisão integrativa com artigos publicados entre 1996 e 2021, na PubMed, BVS, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science e SciELO. Incluídos artigos em português, inglês ou espanhol que validaram diagnósticos, resultados ou intervenções de enfermagem. Excluídos revisões de literatura, notas prévias e editoriais. Coletadas características relacionadas ao conceito validado, tipologia de validação, escala e técnica, tipo e seleção da população do estudo. Apresentação dos resultados organizada pela diretriz PRISMA. Resultados: Amostra de 27 artigos. Destacou-se a validação de conceitos relacionados à morte digna, à atenção à mulher no pós-parto e à pediatria. Predominaram validação de conteúdo e clínica; 41% das pesquisas utilizaram o índice de concordância e 26% o índice de validação de conteúdo. Houve a participação de especialistas em 96% das validações. Conclusões: Escala Likert, avaliação por especialistas e índice de concordância são estratégias adotadas nas pesquisas de validação. Para seleção de especialistas, os critérios são modificados e a experiência clínica é o critério, não padronizado, mais utilizado.