Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34607579›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2021

Exploring hospital compliance with the primary nursing care model: validating an inventory using the Delphi method.

Antonello Cocchieri, Giorgio Magon, Manuela Cavalletti, Elena Cristofori, Maurizio Zega

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Antonello CocchieriFondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168, Rome, Italy. antonello.cocchieri@policlinicogemelli.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7694-4986
Giorgio MagonEuropean Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti, 435, Milan, Italy.
Manuela CavallettiFondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Elena CristoforiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Maurizio ZegaFondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary nursing care model is considered a personalized model of care delivery based on care continuity and on the relationship between the nurse and patient. Primary nursing checklists are not often mentioned in the literature; however, they represent a valid instrument to develop, implement, and evaluate primary nursing. The aim of this study was to create a structured checklist to explore hospital compliance in primary nursing.

methodsThe Delphi method was used to develop and validate a checklist. The preliminary version was created and sent to three experts for their opinions. Their comments were ultimately used in the first version, which included four components with 19 items regarding primary nursing characteristics. A two-round Delphi process was used to generate consensus items. The Delphi panel consisted of six experts working in primary nursing contexts and/or teaching or studying primary nursing. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire from July 2020 to January 2021. These experts were asked to rate each element for relevance using a 4-point Likert-type scale. Furthermore, the consensus among the panel of experts was set at ≥78%, with selected items being voted "quite relevant" and "highly relevant". Content validity index (I-CVI) and modified kappa statistic were also calculated. Following expert evaluation, the first version of the checklist was modified, and the new version, constituting 17 items, was sent to the same experts.

resultsThe first version of the checklist demonstrated a main relevance score of 3.34 (SD = 0.83; range = 1.3-4; mean I-CVI = 0.84; range: 0.83-1), but three items did not receive an adequate I-CVI score, that is, lower than 0.78. After the second round, the I-CVIs improved. The main score of relevance was 3.61 (SD: 0.35; range = 2.83-4; mean = I-CVI: 0.93). The S-CVI/UA was 0.58, and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.93.

conclusionMeasuring primary nursing compliance should be implemented to provide continuous feedback to nurses. Moreover, utilizing valid checklists could permit comparing different results from others' research. Future research should be conducted to compare the results from the checklist with nursing outcomes.

Indexed as

ChecklistContent validityContent validity indexDelphi methodPrimary nursing

Identifiers

PMID34607579
PMCPMC8491371

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.