Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803376›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2023

Nursing-sensitive quality indicators for quality improvement in Norwegian nursing homes - a modified Delphi study.

Kjerstin Tevik, Anne-Sofie Helvik, Geir-Tore Stensvik, Marion S Nordberg, Sigrid Nakrem

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kjerstin TevikDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. kjerstin.e.tevik@ntnu.no.
Anne-Sofie HelvikDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Geir-Tore StensvikDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Marion S NordbergDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Sigrid NakremDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSykehuset i Vestfold · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of nursing-sensitive quality indicators (QIs) is one way to monitor the quality of care in nursing homes (NHs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of nursing-sensitive QIs for Norwegian NHs.

methodsA narrative literature review followed by a non-in-person, two-round, six-step modified Delphi survey was conducted. A five-member project group was established to draw up a list of nursing-sensitive QIs from a preliminary list of 24 QIs selected from Minimum Data Set (2.0) (MDS) and the international Resident Assessment Instrument for Long-Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF). We included scientific experts (researchers), clinical experts (healthcare professionals in NHs), and experts of experience (next-of-kin of NH residents). The experts rated nursing-sensitive QIs in two rounds on a seven-point Likert scale. Consensus was based on median value and level of dispersion. Analyses were conducted for four groups: 1) all experts, 2) scientific experts, 3) clinical experts, and 4) experts of experience.

resultsThe project group drew up a list of 20 nursing-sensitive QIs. Nineteen QIs were selected from MDS/interRAI LTCF and one ('systematic medication review') from the Norwegian quality assessment system IPLOS ('Statistics linked to individual needs of care'). In the first and second Delphi round, 44 experts (13 researchers, 17 healthcare professionals, 14 next-of-kin) and 28 experts (8 researchers, 10 healthcare professionals, 10 next-of-kin) participated, respectively. The final consensus list consisted of 16 nursing-sensitive QIs, which were ranked in this order by the 'all expert group': 1) systematic medication review, 2) pressure ulcers, 3) behavioral symptoms, 4) pain, 5) dehydration, 6) oral/dental health problems, 7) urinary tract infection, 8) fecal impaction, 9) depression, 10) use of aids that inhibit freedom of movement, 11) participation in activities of interest, 12) participation in social activities, 13) decline in activities of daily living, 14) weight loss, 15) falls, and 16) hearing loss without the use of hearing aids.

conclusionsMultidisciplinary experts were able to reach consensus on 16 nursing-sensitive QIs. The results from this study can be used to implement QIs in Norwegian NHs, which can improve the quality of care.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareActivities of Daily LivingDelphi TechniqueHumansNursing HomesClinical indicatorsConsensusDelphi processDementiaGeriatric nursinginterRAI LTCFLong-term careQuality indicatorsQuality of healthcareRAI-MDS

Identifiers

PMID37803376
PMCPMC10557356
OpenAlexW4387407575

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.