IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i11-12p2179-2188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Richards
  • Angelique Hilli
  • Claire Pentecost
  • Victoria A. Goodwin
  • Julia Frost

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. Background Patient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots. Results We included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non‐randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self‐management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self‐management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient‐reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self‐reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria. Conclusions The current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence‐based guidance to practising nurses. Relevance to clinical practice Researchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Richards & Angelique Hilli & Claire Pentecost & Victoria A. Goodwin & Julia Frost, 2018. "Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2179-2188, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:11-12:p:2179-2188
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14150
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14150?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Craig M. Dale & Jan E. Angus & Susan Sutherland & Shelly Dev & Louise Rose, 2020. "Exploration of difficulty accessing the mouths of intubated and mechanically ventilated adults for oral care: A video and photographic elicitation study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1920-1932, June.
    2. Claire Pentecost & Julia Frost & Holly V. R. Sugg & Angelique Hilli & Victoria A. Goodwin & David A. Richards, 2020. "Patients' and nurses' experiences of fundamental nursing care: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1858-1882, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Debra Jackson & Olga Kozlowska, 2018. "Fundamental care—the quest for evidence," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2177-2178, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Daniela Lillekroken, 2020. "“A privilege but also a challenge.” Nurse educators' perceptions about teaching fundamental care in a simulated learning environment: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 2011-2022, June.
    7. Alison Kitson, 2018. "Moving on…," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2175-2176, June.

    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:27:y:2018:i:11-12:p:2179-2188. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.