The decision-making in clinical nursing, regarding diagnoses, interventions and outcomes, can be assessed using standardized language systems such as NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification; these taxonomies are the most commonly used by nurses in informatized clinical records. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of the nursing process with standardized terminology using the NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification in care practice to assess the association between the presence of the related/risk factors and the clinical decision-making about nursing diagnosis, assessing the effectiveness of nursing interventions and health outcomes, and increasing people’s satisfaction. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and PreMedline (OvidSP), Embase (Embase-Elsevier), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI and Scielo (WOS), LILACS (Health Virtual Library) and SCOPUS (SCOPUS-Elsevier) and included randomized clinical trials as well as quasi-experimental, cohort and case-control studies. Selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Methodology. A total of 17 studies were included with variability in the level and certainty of evidence. According to the outcomes, 6 studies assessed diagnostic decision-making and 11 assessed improvements in individual health outcomes. No studies assessed improvements in intervention effectiveness or population satisfaction. There is a need to increase studies with rigorous methodologies that address clinical decision-making about nursing diagnoses using NANDA International and individuals’ health outcomes using the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification as well as implementing studies that assess the use of these terminologies for improvements in the effectiveness of nurses’ interventions and population satisfaction with the nursing process.

Escape room games are educational gamification technologies that consist of introducing a team of players into a physical or digital space in search of clues to answer puzzles, riddles or enigmas and solve a mystery or problem. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of escape room games on the training of nursing students in an international context. A systematic review was carried out in MEDLINE, WOS, SCOPUS, CINAHL and LILACS databases using the MeSH terms “Education, Nursing” and “Educational Technology”, and the free term “Escape room”, combined with Boolean operators AND/OR. Intervention studies in Spanish, English and Portuguese were included, without limitation for the year of publication. Selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. A total of n = 13 interventional studies were included (n = 2 Randomized Clinical Trials and n = 11 quasi-experimental design). Escape rooms are a recent and growing educational methodology, increasingly used in academia and in the training of nurses and nursing students. However, it is necessary to expand their use and the quality of the studies in a greater number of contexts. Furthermore, it is necessary to homogenize and standardize validated instruments to evaluate the effectiveness of escape rooms in the nursing education area.

Obstetric violence refers to dehumanized or derogative treatment of women in their pregnancy, childbirth or postpartum periods and may be manifested in different ways. Currently, there is no tool validated in Spain to measure women’s perception of obstetric violence. The objective of this study was to carry out the cultural adaptation and validation of an existing 14-item obstetric violence scale in the Spanish context and to evaluate its psychometric properties. The research was conducted in two phases: first, a methodological study designed to evaluate content validity, through assessments by eight experts (calculating the Aiken V coefficient) and face validity in a sample of 20 women; second, a cross-sectional study to evaluate construct validity (through confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis), divergent validity against a scale of birth satisfaction, known-groups validity and, finally, reliability. In Phase 1, Aiken V values higher than 0.71 were obtained for all items. Phase 2 was conducted on a sample of 256 women and the fit values for the unidimensional model were RMSEA: 0.070 (95% CI: 0.059–0.105) and GFI: 0.982 (95% CI: 0.823–0.990). The Rasch analysis indicated poor performance of item 2, which was removed. The Omega and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were 0.863 and 0.860, respectively. A final 13-item version of the Obstetric Violence Scale was produced, with a total score ranging from 0 (no obstetric violence perception) to 52 (maximum obstetric violence perception). The Obstetric Violence Scale is a reliable and useful tool to measure women’s perception of obstetric violence. This study was not registered.

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of feelings of being a second victim among midwives and obstetricians in Spain and to explore possible differences between the two professions.Design: Cross‐sectional descriptive‐analytical observational study.Methods: An online survey collecting several variables was administered throughout the Spanish territory. Spanish version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST) was used. The data collection period was from May to December 2020.Results: A total sample of 719 obstetricians and midwives were studied. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to seven dimensions of SVEST: greater feelings of being a second victim among obstetricians in the dimensions physical distress/p ≤ .001, non‐work‐related support/p ≤ .001 and absenteeism/p ≤ .001 and greater feelings of being a second victim among midwives in the dimensions psychological distress/p ≤ .001, supervisor support/p = .011, professional self‐efficacy/p ≤ .001 and intention to change jobs/p ≤ .001.