Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32410633›Full record

ArticleHuman resources for health2020

Developing metrics for nursing quality of care for low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review linked to stakeholder engagement.

David Gathara, Mathias Zosi, George Serem, Jacinta Nzinga, Georgina A V Murphy, Debra Jackson, Sharon Brownie, Mike English

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Human resources for health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

David GatharaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 00100, Nairobi, Kenya. Dgathara@kemri-wellcome.org.
Mathias ZosiKenya Medical Training College, Kilifi Campus, Nairobi, Kenya.
George SeremKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacinta NzingaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Georgina A V MurphyNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, UK.
Debra JacksonSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Sharon BrowniePRAXIS Forum, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6HG, UK.
Mike EnglishKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KEGriffith University · AUKenya Medical Training College · KEUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust 207522Wellcome Trust 207522/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of appropriate and relevant nurse-sensitive indicators provides an opportunity to demonstrate the unique contributions of nurses to patient outcomes. The aim of this work was to develop relevant metrics to assess the quality of nursing care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where they are scarce. MAIN BODY: We conducted a scoping review using EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases of studies published in English focused on quality nursing care and with identified measurement methods. Indicators identified were reviewed by a diverse panel of nursing stakeholders in Kenya to develop a contextually appropriate set of nurse-sensitive indicators for Kenyan hospitals specific to the five major inpatient disciplines. We extracted data on study characteristics, nursing indicators reported, location and the tools used. A total of 23 articles quantifying the quality of nursing care services met the inclusion criteria. All studies identified were from high-income countries. Pooled together, 159 indicators were reported in the reviewed studies with 25 identified as the most commonly reported. Through the stakeholder consultative process, 52 nurse-sensitive indicators were recommended for Kenyan hospitals.

conclusionsAlthough nurse-sensitive indicators are increasingly used in high-income countries to improve quality of care, there is a wide heterogeneity in the way indicators are defined and interpreted. Whilst some indicators were regarded as useful by a Kenyan expert panel, contextual differences prompted them to recommend additional new indicators to improve the evaluations of nursing care provision in Kenyan hospitals and potentially similar LMIC settings. Taken forward through implementation, refinement and adaptation, the proposed indicators could be more standardised and may provide a common base to establish national or regional professional learning networks with the common goal of achieving high-quality care through quality improvement and learning.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesStakeholder ParticipationBenchmarkingData ManagementHumansKenyaNursing CarePatient SafetyPatient SatisfactionQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareMetricsNurseNurse-sensitive indicatorsNursingQuality nursing care and outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID32410633
PMCPMC7222310
OpenAlexW3027889200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.