ArticleCureus2024
Identifying Nursing-Sensitive Indicators for Hospitals: A Modified Delphi Approach.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of nursing-sensitive quality indicators for pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism using the Delphi method.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Development of a Nursing Quality Evaluation Indicator System for Lung Cancer in Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on the Donabedian Model: A Delphi Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Self-Management Motivation Scale for Children with Chronic Diseases.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury in neurosurgery inpatients: a real-world prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Evidence Synthesis for the Development of National Nursing-Sensitive Indicators in Malaysia: A Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement Approach.SAGE open nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNursing-sensitive indicators (NSIs) play a crucial role in measuring the quality of care specific to nursing practice. Currently, hospitals monitor several NSIs which may vary between hospitals. Conducting research on NSIs can enhance the monitoring of nursing practice.
aimThe aim is to identify NSIs for hospitals in Jordan. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The Delphi approach was utilized to establish a consensus among a panel of national nursing experts (N=60). An initial list of 52 indicators was developed through a rigorous process and subsequently distributed to the panel members. The panelists provided their quantitative responses in three rounds. Consensus was determined based on the following criteria: agreement greater than 51.0%, interquartile range (IQR) below 1.5, standard deviation (SD) below 1, and moderate Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W).
resultsBy the conclusion of the third round, a total of 42 indicators achieved group agreement. The agreed-upon indicators consisted of 10 structure, 16 process, and 16 outcome indicators.
conclusionThis study successfully established a consensus and identified a comprehensive set of indicators that capture the distinct contributions of nursing in the hospital setting. The results demonstrate a wide range of agreed-upon indicators across the domains of structure, process, and outcome. These findings are valuable in enhancing the monitoring and evaluation of nursing practice in hospitals. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study provide a solid foundation for monitoring and reporting the quality of nursing practice in hospitals. Nursing policymakers can utilize these findings to develop policies that promote the voluntary reporting of NSIs.
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.