Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704019›Full record

SynthesisJournal of nursing management2022

The integration of care ethics and nursing workload: A qualitative systematic review.

Denise Waterfield, Susan Barnason

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

Synthesis in Journal of nursing management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Denise WaterfieldCollege of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6354-8071
Susan BarnasonCollege of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this review was to explore literature from January 2017 to December 2021 for specific aspects of care ethics related to nursing workload in the acute care setting.

backgroundHigh nursing workload is associated with adverse outcomes for nurses as well as patients. Nursing workload goes beyond patient-to-nurse ratios and encompasses patient, nurse and organizational factors. EVALUATION: This qualitative systematic review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The four features of care ethics related to nursing workload guided the review of qualitative studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and synthesized findings were presented in the four phases of caring. KEY ISSUES: Key issues include ethical dilemmas, time pressure, shared moral burden and managerial support.

conclusionTo reduce nursing workload, a care ethics perspective can provide solutions through fortifying interprofessional relationships and enhancing empathetic actions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Situational, individual and team approaches to management allows for incorporation of personal values and ethics of care to support patient-centred care. Leadership initiating conversations and being proactive about workload can lead to an improved work environment for both the nurse and the nurse manager.

Indexed as

Ethics, NursingWorkloadHumansLeadershipMoralsNurse-Patient RelationsQualitative Researchculturedecision makingethicsnurse managerworkload

Identifiers

PMID35704019
PMCPMC10084060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.