Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254154›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

What about the fundamentals of nursing-its interventions and its continuity among older people in need of home- or facility-based care: a scoping review.

O M Nordaunet, E R Gjevjon, C Olsson, H Aagaard, G Borglin

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 1 institution in 2 countries.

O M NordaunetDepartment of Bachelor Education (Nursing), Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15B, NO-0456, Oslo, Norway. Ole.martin.nordaunet@ldh.no.
E R GjevjonDepartment of Bachelor Education (Nursing), Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15B, NO-0456, Oslo, Norway.
C OlssonDepartment of Bachelor Education (Nursing), Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15B, NO-0456, Oslo, Norway.
H AagaardDepartment of Bachelor Education (Nursing), Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15B, NO-0456, Oslo, Norway.
G BorglinDepartment of Bachelor Education (Nursing), Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15B, NO-0456, Oslo, Norway.
Lovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis scoping review investigated and descriptively summarised previous research about fundamental nursing, its focus (what care needs are described, how is it described and by whom is it described), continuity of care (is it described in relation to fundamental nursing) and possible nursing interventions or activities targeting older people's fundamentals of care needs in home- or facility-based care.

methodsThis scoping review was carried out following the steps of Arksey and O'Malley's methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed via NIH, CINAHL via EBSCO and PsycInfo via ProQuest for the time period between January 2002 and May 2023.

resultsForty-two studies were included where the majority had been conducted in a facility-based care context. Nutrition-or rather nutritional care activities targeting eating and drinking-was the most frequently described fundamental care needs addressed. After this came personal care such as cleansing, dressing, oral care, skin, and foot care. Few studies addressed more than one fundamental care need at the time. The nursing staff described fundamental nursing as complex, comprehensive, and demanding. Older people and relatives described a gap between the fundamental nursing provided and their perceived need for support. Less attention was given to older peoples relational and psychosocial needs. Identified nursing interventions mainly targeted physical care needs. Our findings also implied that interventions focusing on fundamental nursing were described as feasible in practice with favourable or moderate results, while long-term effects were difficult to detect. No studies were identified focusing on fundamental nursing in relation to outcomes such as continuity of care.

conclusionFundamental nursing was mainly described in relation to physical care needs, which were essentially conducted within facility-based care contexts. Interventions and activities primarily focused on one fundamental need at the time, mainly within the physical domain. No nursing interventions were identified focusing on relational and psychosocial needs where continuity of care can be viewed as a relevant outcome. Such limited focus are especially concerning as research has highlighted the importance of that older people with complex care needs can benefit from a holistic and person-centred approach i.e. fundamental nursing.

trial registrationOpen Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XJ39E Protocol: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069798.

Indexed as

Continuity of careInterventionsLiterature reviewLong-term careNurseRegistered nurse

Identifiers

PMID38254154
PMCPMC10801980
OpenAlexW4391107763

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.