ArticleBMC nursing2022
Measuring patient acuity and nursing care needs in South Korea: application of a new patient classification system.
Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- HealthCare Complexity Index (HCIn): A Clinical Decision-Making Tool for Primary Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Implications of Activity of Daily Living for Clinical Care of Older Adults Undergoing Urological Surgery-A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Association Between Nurse Staffing Coverage and Patient Outcomes in a Context of Prepandemic Structural Understaffing: A Patient-Unit-Level Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn accurate and reliable patient classification system (PCS) can help inform decisions regarding adequate assignments for nurse staffing. This study aimed to evaluate the criterion validity of the Asan Patient Classification System (APCS), a new tertiary hospital-specific PCS, by comparing its rating and total scores with those of KPCS-1 and KPCS-GW for measuring patient activity and nursing needs.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 50,314 inpatients admitted to the general wards of a tertiary teaching hospital in Seoul, South Korea in March, June, September, and December 2019. Spearman's correlation and Kappa statistics according to quartiles were calculated to examine the criterion validity of the APCS compared with the KPCS-1 and KPCS-GW.
resultsThe average patient classification score was 28.3 points for APCS, 25.7 points for KPCS-1, and 21.6 points for KPCS-GW. The kappa value between APCS and KPCS-1 was 0.91 (95% CI:0.9072, 0.9119) and that between APCS and KPCS-GW was 0.88 (95% CI:0.8757, 0.8810). Additionally, Spearman's correlation coefficients among APCS, KPCS-1, and KPCS-GW showed a very strong correlation. However, 10.8% of the participants' results were inconsistent, and KPCS-1 tended to classify patients into groups with lower nursing needs compared to APCS.
conclusionThis study showed that electronic health record-generated APCS can provide useful information on patients' severity and nursing activities to measure workload estimation. Additional research is needed to develop and implement a real-world EHR-based PCS system to accommodate for direct and indirect nursing care while considering diverse population and dynamic healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.