Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161449›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Missed Care from the Patient's Perspective - A Scoping Review.

Noora Gustafsson, Helena Leino-Kilpi, Ivana Prga, Riitta Suhonen, Minna Stolt, RANCARE consortium COST Action – CA15208

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Noora GustafssonDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Helena Leino-KilpiDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2477-971X
Ivana PrgaAndrija Stampar Teaching Institute of Public Health, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-8197-7152
Riitta SuhonenDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-5550
Minna StoltDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1845-9800
RANCARE consortium COST Action – CA15208

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missed care, defined as any aspect of patient care that is omitted or delayed, is receiving increasing attention. It is primarily caused by the imbalance between patients' nursing care needs and the resources available, making it an ethical issue that challenges nurses' professional and moral values. In this scoping review, conducted using the five-stage approach by Arksey and O'Malley, our aim is to analyze the patients' perspective to missed care, as the topic has been mainly examined from nurses' perspective. The search was conducted in April 2019 in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Philosophers Index databases using the following terms: omitted care, unfinished nursing care, care undone, care unfinished, missed care, care left undone, task undone and implicit rationing with no time limitation. The English-language studies where missed care was examined in the nursing context and had patients as informants on patient-reported missed care or patients' perceptions on nurse-reported missed care were selected for the review. Thirteen studies were included and analyzed with thematic content analysis. Twelve studies were quantitative in nature. Patients were able to report missed care, and mostly reported missed basic care, followed by missed communication with staff and problems with timeliness when they had to wait to get the help they needed. In statistical analysis, missed care was associated with patient-reported adverse events and patients' perceptions of staffing adequacy, and in patients' perception, it was mainly caused by lack of staff and insufficient experience. Furthermore, patients' health status, as opposed to gender, predicted missed care. The results concerning patients' age and education level were conflicting. Patients are able to identify missed care. However, further research is needed to examine patient-perceived missed care as well as to examine how patients identify missed care, and to get a clear definition of missed care.

Indexed as

care left undoneomitted carepatient perceptionsunmet nursing care needs

Identifiers

PMID32161449
PMCPMC7049852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.