Background: Spirituality has always been present in the history of nursing and continues to be a topic of nursing interest. Spirituality has ancient roots. The term ‘spirituality’ is interpreted as spirit and is translated as breath and soul, whereas spirituality (immateriality) is spiritual nature. Historically, the term spirituality is associated with the term religiosity, a definition that persists today, and often the two terms are used interchangeably. In the healthcare context, the construct is still. Objective: To clarify the concept of spirituality in nursing. Research design: In this article spirituality was explored using Rodgers' evolutionary and inductive method of concept analysis. Participants and research context: For this analysis, a sample of 71 articles published in English, from 2008 to 2018 from PubMed/Medline, CINAHL Plus with full text, PsycINFO, SciELO databases were retrieved. It was also accomplished an empirical search of dictionaries and e-books. Ethical considerations: This study was conducted according to good scientific practice. Findings: It emerged that “spirituality” is a dynamic process and has a range of attributes. The cultural dimensions, the religious and spiritual traditions, the ethnic diversity and the influence of the historical and social contexts represent the societal and historical conditions ingrained in the Western thought that influence the emergence of spirituality as a concept. Antecedents, attributes and onsequences appeared to inform and strengthen one another over time. Spirituality is a significant concept for the discipline of nursing with profound consequences for caring patients and for work organizations.

Spirituality is a common theme in the field of healthcare research. This study aimed to examine nurses’ perceptions of spirituality in the context of the religious diversity of patients in pluri-religious settings. We performed a scoping review following the methodology on studies conducted between 2010 and 2020. We searched the following databases: CINAHL Plus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. For the identification of grey literature, the OpenGrey database was used. In total, 789 articles were reviewed. Of these, 16 met predetermined inclusion criteria. Two main overarching themes emerged from our inductive analysis: (a) the intertwining of spirituality and spiritual care in diverse religious landscapes and (b) obstacles impeding the inclusion of spiritual care in pluri-religious settings. According to our results, nurses consider that spirituality is interconnected with spiritual care for individuals from different religious backgrounds. Interpretations of spirituality in nursing practice vary widely, with spirituality and religiosity often shaped and influenced by culture and the experience of the professionals. Nurses attribute various meanings to spiritual care, most of which center on respecting personal, interpersonal, and relational aspects of religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Lack of education and specific skills, insufficient time, role ambiguity, and different religious beliefs were identified as hurdles to spiritual care. A poor work environment, a lack of patient privacy, including personal space, and a lack of compassion were also reported as deterrents to spiritual healing. More knowledge and training on different religions and spirituality are required to meet patients’ spiritual needs to better overcome these hurdles.

(1) Background: In response to the impact of religious intervention on health outcomes and the importance of documenting how nurses experience the spiritual need of 392 hospitalized patients, it is vital to provide the nursing profession with instruments to evaluate these spiritual aspects. This study describes the development and validation of the Nursing Care and Religious Diversity Scale (NCRDS); (2) Methods: A two-step design was used for NCRDS translation and psychometric validation. The tool design was developed in the first step, while the psychometric characteristics were tested in the second step. An inductive study was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the NCRDS tool. The overall sample consisted of 317 nurses; (3) Results: The final instrument comprised 25 items in five dimensions. The construct validity indicated five dimensions. The face and content validity were adequate. Test-retest reliability displayed good stability, and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was acceptable (0.83); (4) Conclusions: Initial testing of the NCRDS suggested that it is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate individuals in religious diversity, with five dimensions for evaluating the meaning of spirituality and individual belief, the religious healthcare environment, educational adequacy, spiritual and religious needs, and religious plurality.