ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Towards a set of competencies in palliative care nursing in Spain: what's getting in the way of consensus?
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correction: Towards a set of competencies in palliative care nursing in Spain: what's getting in the way of consensus?BMC palliative care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpain currently lacks a competency framework for palliative care nursing. Having such a framework would help to advance this field in academic, governmental, and health management contexts. In phase I of a mixed-methods sequential study, we collected quantitative data, proposing 98 competencies to a sample of palliative care nurses. They accepted 62 of them and rejected 36.
methodsPhase II is a qualitative phase in which we used consensus techniques with two modified nominal groups to interpret the quantitative findings with the objective of understanding of why the 36 competencies had been rejected. Twenty nurses from different areas of palliative care (direct care, teaching, management, research) participated. We conducted a thematic analysis using NVivo12 to identify meaning units and group them into larger thematic categories.
resultsParticipants attributed the lack of consensus on the 36 competencies to four main reasons: the rejection of standardised nursing language, the context in which nurses carry out palliative care and other factors that are external to the care itself, the degree of specificity of the proposed competency (too little or too great), and the complexity of nursing care related to the end of life and/or death.
conclusionsBased on the results, we propose reparative actions, such as reformulating the competencies expressed in nursing terminology to describe them as specific behaviours and insisting on the participation of nurses in developing institutional policies and strategies so that competencies related to development, leadership and professional commitment can be implemented. It is essential to promote greater consensus on the definition and levels of nursing intervention according to criteria of complexity and to advocate for adequate training, regulation, and accreditation of palliative care expert practice. Locally, understanding why the 36 competencies were rejected can help Spanish palliative care nurses reach a shared competency framework. More broadly, our consensus methodology and our findings regarding the causes for rejection may be useful to other countries that are in the process of formalising or reviewing their palliative care nursing model.
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.