IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i19-20p3652-3666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Where and how does fundamental care fit within seminal nursing theories: A narrative review and synthesis of key nursing concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Mudd
  • Rebecca Feo
  • Tiffany Conroy
  • Alison Kitson

Abstract

Aims and objectives To elucidate the synergies between fundamental care and seminal nursing theories. Background Nursing theories are often criticised for their limited clinical relevance, with the existence of a theory‐to‐practice gap widely acknowledged. Pervasive examples of poor‐quality care, particularly for people's most fundamental needs, raise questions as to whether nursing theories sufficiently prioritise fundamental care. The Fundamentals of Care Framework (hereinafter “the Framework”) represents a valid, comprehensive and evidence‐based description of fundamental care. The Framework captures the complexity and multidimensionality of fundamental care delivery, predicated on the nurse–patient relationship; integration of physical, psychosocial and relational needs; and a supportive context. Despite strong face validity, the Framework's alignment with seminal nursing theories remains unexplored. Design Narrative review. Method Twenty‐nine seminal nursing theories were included. Categories for analysis were developed inductively and deductively, focusing on the themes of relationship, integration of care, context and the theories’ ease of use. Results are reported in accordance with PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Results Though relationship, integration of care and context and were features shared across a number of nursing theories, no single theory depicts these collectively to the same extent as the Framework. In particular, integration of physical, psychosocial and relational aspects of care was found to be poorly described in the theories. Conclusion Failure to account for integration of care means that nursing theories continue to conceptualise fundamental care as a series of discrete tasks. To ensure relevance at the point of care, future nursing theories must accurately reflect the complexities of fundamental care delivery, specifically the need to integrate multiple care needs simultaneously, alongside being straightforward to apply in practice. Relevance to clinical practice Bridging the theory‐to‐practice gap requires a nursing discourse that is relevant at the point of care. We provide suggestions for how future nursing theories can bridge this gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Mudd & Rebecca Feo & Tiffany Conroy & Alison Kitson, 2020. "Where and how does fundamental care fit within seminal nursing theories: A narrative review and synthesis of key nursing concepts," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3652-3666, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:19-20:p:3652-3666
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15420
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenny M Parr & Jeanette Bell & Jane Koziol‐McLain, 2018. "Evaluating fundamentals of care: The development of a unit‐level quality measurement and improvement programme," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2360-2372, June.
    2. Rebecca Feo & Alison Kitson & Tiffany Conroy, 2018. "How fundamental aspects of nursing care are defined in the literature: A scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2189-2229, June.
    3. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Robert, Glenn & Macfarlane, Fraser & Bate, Paul & Kyriakidou, Olympia & Peacock, Richard, 2005. "Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 417-430, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Matteo Danielis, 2021. "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," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-265, January.
    2. Lawless, Michael T. & Tieu, Matthew & Feo, Rebecca & Kitson, Alison L., 2021. "Theories of self-care and self-management of long-term conditions by community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and meta-ethnography," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Matteo Danielis, 2021. "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," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-265, January.
    2. Annamaria Bagnasco & Milko Zanini & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Fiona Timmins & Miss Carolina Galanti & Giuseppe Aleo & Gianluca Catania & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Dignity, privacy, respect and choice—A scoping review of measurement of these concepts within acute healthcare practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1832-1857, June.
    3. Lijuan Du & Li Xu & Yanping Li & Changshun Liu & Zhenhua Li & Jefferson S. Wong & Bo Lei, 2019. "China’s Agricultural Irrigation and Water Conservancy Projects: A Policy Synthesis and Discussion of Emerging Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Costa Climent, Ricardo & Haftor, Darek M., 2021. "Business model theory-based prediction of digital technology use: An empirical assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Anett Skorpen Tarberg & Bodil J. Landstad & Torstein Hole & Morten Thronæs & Marit Kvangarsnes, 2020. "Nurses’ experiences of compassionate care in the palliative pathway," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4818-4826, December.
    6. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Jesus Gonzalez-Feliu, 2013. "Vehicle Routing in Multi-Echelon Distribution Systems with Cross-Docking: A Systematic Lexical-Metanarrative Analysis," Post-Print halshs-00834573, HAL.
    8. Marlene Æ. Jensen & Mette N. Yilmaz & Birgith Pedersen, 2020. "Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice—A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3847-3859, October.
    9. Gagliardi, Dimitri & Ramlogan, Ronnie & Navarra, Pierluigi & Dello Russo, Cinzia, 2018. "Diffusion of complementary evolving pharmaceutical innovations: The case of Abacavir and its pharmacogenetic companion diagnostic in Italy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 223-233.
    10. Mike Danilovic & Marleen Hensbergen & Maya Hoveskog & Liudmila Zadayannaya, 2015. "Exploring Diffusion and Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 129-141, May.
    11. Isabella Bonacci & Andrea Mazzitelli & Donato Morea, 2020. "Evaluating Climate between Working Excellence and Organizational Innovation: What Comes First?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    12. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Chaiwichit Chianchana, 2020. "Research Synthesis on Educational Models," GATR Journals gjbssr569, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    14. Robert Kaba Alhassan & Edward Nketiah-Amponsah & Daniel Kojo Arhinful, 2016. "A Review of the National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana: What Are the Sustainability Threats and Prospects?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Annamaria Bagnasco & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Carolina Galanti & Gloria Varone & Gianluca Catania & Milko Zanini & Giuseppe Aleo & Roger Watson & Mark Hayter & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Unmet nursing care needs on medical and surgical wards: A scoping review of patients’ perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3-4), pages 347-369, February.
    16. Isabel Saz-Gil & Ignacio Bretos & Millán Díaz-Foncea, 2021. "Cooperatives and Social Capital: A Narrative Literature Review and Directions for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Kahiya, Eldrede T., 2018. "Five decades of research on export barriers: Review and future directions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1172-1188.
    18. Alvisa Palese & Lucia Cadorin & Marco Testa & Tommaso Geri & Luana Colloca & Giacomo Rossettini, 2019. "Contextual factors triggering placebo and nocebo effects in nursing practice: Findings from a national cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1966-1978, May.
    19. Mathew Azarian & Hao Yu & Asmamaw Tadege Shiferaw & Tor Kristian Stevik, 2023. "Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-32, November.
    20. Ferlie, Ewan & Crilly, Tessa & Jashapara, Ashok & Peckham, Anna, 2012. "Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: A critical review of health sector and generic management literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(8), pages 1297-1304.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:19-20:p:3652-3666. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.