Methods, metrics and research gaps around minimum data sets for nursing practice and fundamental care: A scoping literature review

Athlin, Åsa Muntlin

doi:10.1111/jocn.14155

Cited by 21 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(124 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along this line, to our best knowledge, this is the first study attempting to analyse the convergences, if any, between The Framework and UNC tools. These lines of research seem to have been developed independently from each other, and only sparse traces have considered them potentially linkable; visible examples can be found in some studies, as for example, (a) ‘addressing fundamental care has been highlighted internationally as a response to missed nursing care’ (Muntlin Athlin, 2018, p. 2230), and (b) ‘missed nursing care causes severe consequences for patients… and person‐centred fundamental care in which communication is central provide an approach to manage this challenge’ (Avallin et al, 2020, p. 1). Other attempts have been performed to align The Framework with other concepts (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have undertaken this research exercise as how The Framework should be measured is still an open question for educators, researchers and clinicians (Feo et al, 2019) despite some documented attempts (Muntlin Athlin, 2018; Odgaard et al, 2020; Parr et al, 2018). For what concerns UNC, studies validating tools have been documented since the initial phase just after the establishment of the concepts as a first research outcome (Kalisch et al, 2009; Schubert et al, 2007), creating a solid body of knowledge in the last 15 years, mainly in the US and in Europe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review

Palese

Longhini

Danielis

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To establish whether, and to what extent, tools measuring Unfinished Nursing Care (UNC) that have been validated to date have the ability to detect the discrete elements of the ‘Integration of care’ dimension of The Fundamentals of Care Framework (The Framework). Background UNC and The Framework have been established as two separate research lines, focused on (a) omitted care and related tools, and (b) on how to improve patient care, respectively. However, no attempts have been made to date to establish whether, and to what extent, tools measuring UNC have the ability to represent the discrete elements of The Framework. Design A two‐step study: (a) a secondary analysis of a systematic review up to June 2018 later updated in May 2020, followed by (b) a comparative analysis. Methods A systematic review of studies on validated tools measuring UNC was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guideline. Then, researchers independently performed a comparative analysis between the extracted (a) discrete elements of The Framework and (b) items of the UNC tools retrieved. Results A total of 14 tools were analysed. The physical dimension of The Framework was the one mostly covered by UNC tools (up to 87.5% with the Perceived Implicit Rationing of Nursing Care). The Norwegian Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care showed the highest level of representation (41.6%) for the psychosocial dimension. Only the Perceived Implicit Rationing of Nursing Care and the Unfinished Care tool measure the relational dimension (22.2%, respectively). By considering all elements of the ‘Integration of care’ dimension, the Perceived Implicit Rationing of Care had the highest percentage of convergence (41%). Conclusion Not all UNC tools have the same ability to represent the discrete elements of The Framework. Moreover, physical needs are more often detected in UNC tools compared to the relational and psychological ones. Relevance to clinical practice Unfinished care tools validated to date can represent a body of knowledge on which to build The Framework metrics, especially for the physical dimensions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review

Palese

Longhini

Danielis

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The grey and non‐grey literature successfully identified practice evidence, but there was little higher‐level research evidence supporting the identified metrics. As they were closely linked to the fundamentals of care around which there is a lack of high‐quality research evidence (Muntlin Athlin, ; Richards et al, ), this is unsurprising. Similarly, there was little patient and public evidence to further support which areas of practice might be considered relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of Nursing Quality Care Process Metrics and Indicators for use in Older Persons Care Settings: A Delphi‐Consensus Study

Murphy

Doody

Lyons

et al. 2019

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To develop a suite of nursing quality care process metrics and indicators for older persons care settings in Ireland. Background Regulatory investigations of health system failures highlight non‐adherence to clinical guidelines and standards resulting in deficiencies in nursing care delivery. Limited attention has been paid to measuring nursing care processes particularly in the care of older people. Quality care process metrics can facilitate measurement of nurse‐sensitive measures of care. Design A scoping literature review and modified Delphi‐Consensus Technique. Methods A scoping review of literature published between January 2007 – January 2017 was conducted to identify nursing process metrics and indicators. The Delphi Consensus phase incorporated a four‐round electronic survey of 404 nurses and a consensus meeting with 13 stakeholders working in Older Persons Care Settings in Ireland. Findings From the review, 33 potential metrics were identified. After all Delphi survey rounds, 20 metrics and 90 associated indicators were selected by the nurses. Following the consensus meeting, 19 metrics and 80 indicators were included in the final suite of nursing quality care process metrics and indicators. Conclusion Developing this suite of nursing quality care process metrics and indicators for use in older persons care settings provided consensus on what nursing processes should be measured to improve the quality and safety of care delivery. Impact The nursing processes identified, provide a framework for future research and educational programmes in the care of older persons. Although conducted in the Irish healthcare system, there is potential for adoption or adaption in other healthcare settings.

show abstract

“…Another reason to increase the amount of translation research is to ensure that evidence is implemented into nursing practice based on the latest research (Deutschman, Ahrens, Cairns, Sessler, & Parsons, 2012;Heitkemper et al, 2015;Weiss et al, 2018). Overall, researchers have stated that the impact of nursing research is now hidden, and it must be recognized by conducting scientifically sound studies with generalizable results (Baldi et al, 2014;Kim, Sefcik, & Bradway, 2017;Muntlin, 2018;Richards et al, 2014).…”

Section: Methodology Of Nursing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nursing research priorities based on CINAHL database: A scoping review

Hopia

Heikkila

2019

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To analyse nursing research based on the CINAHL database to identify research priorities for nursing. Design A scoping literature review was conducted. The CINAHL Plus (EBSCO) Full Text was searched between 2012–2018. Methods Out of 1522 original publications, 91 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were applied. Data were analysed by a thematic analysis method. Results A strong emphasis should be put on development and evaluation of nursing theories and, in addition, randomized controlled trial studies, meta‐synthesis, experimental and intervention studies are needed in nursing research. Development of competencies and skills in the nursing profession ought to be studied more extensively and research should be focused on variety fields of nursing practice.

show abstract

Methods, metrics and research gaps around minimum data sets for nursing practice and fundamental care: A scoping literature review

Abstract: Using minimum data sets can highlight the nurses' work and what impact it has on direct patient care. Appropriate models, systems and standardised terminology are needed to facilitate the documentation of nursing activities.

Cited by 21 publications

References 44 publications

To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review

To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review

The development of Nursing Quality Care Process Metrics and Indicators for use in Older Persons Care Settings: A Delphi‐Consensus Study

Nursing research priorities based on CINAHL database: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About