IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i1-2p239-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Alvisa Palese
  • Jessica Longhini
  • Matteo Danielis

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:1-2:p:239-265
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15543
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15543?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. Terry Jones & Anat Drach‐Zahavy & Mário Amorim‐Lopes & Eileen Willis, 2020. "Systems, economics, and neoliberal politics: Theories to understand missed nursing care," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 586-592, September.
    2. Lianne Jeffs & Asa Muntlin Athlin & Jack Needleman & Debra Jackson & Alison Kitson, 2018. "Building the foundation to generate a fundamental care standardised data set," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2481-2488, June.
    3. Åsa Muntlin Athlin & Maria Brovall & Yvonne Wengström & Tiffany Conroy & Alison L. Kitson, 2018. "Descriptions of fundamental care needs in cancer care—An exploratory study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2322-2332, June.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Therese Connell Meehan & Fiona Timmins & Jacqueline Burke, 2018. "Fundamental care guided by the Careful Nursing Philosophy and Professional Practice Model©," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2260-2273, June.
    7. Lene Odgaard & Lena Aadal & Marianne Eskildsen & Ingrid Poulsen, 2020. "Using clinical quality databases to monitor the quality of fundamental care: Example with weight status after severe traumatic brain injury," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 2031-2038, June.
    8. Åsa Muntlin Athlin, 2018. "Methods, metrics and research gaps around minimum data sets for nursing practice and fundamental care: A scoping literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2230-2247, June.
    9. Alison Kitson, 2020. "Fundamentals of care: Methodologies, metrics and mobilisation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1762-1764, June.
    10. Alejandra Recio‐Saucedo & Chiara Dall'Ora & Antonello Maruotti & Jane Ball & Jim Briggs & Paul Meredith & Oliver C Redfern & Caroline Kovacs & David Prytherch & Gary B Smith & Peter Griffiths, 2018. "What impact does nursing care left undone have on patient outcomes? Review of the literature," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2248-2259, June.
    11. 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.
    12. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    13. Claire Minton & Lesley Batten & Annette Huntington, 2018. "The impact of a prolonged stay in the ICU on patients’ fundamental care needs," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2300-2310, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Alison Kitson, 2018. "Moving on…," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2175-2176, June.
    4. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    5. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    9. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    10. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    11. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    15. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    17. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    20. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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:30:y:2021:i:1-2:p:239-265. 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.