Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40145373›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025

Assessing the Complexity of Fundamental Care: Developing and Refining the Flinders Fundamentals of Care Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice.

Rebecca Feo, Tiffany Conroy, Britt Laugesen, Siri Lygum Voldbjerg, Mette Gronkjaer, Kira Jensen, Md Abdul Ahad, Jolene Thomas, Alison Kitson, Birgitte Lerbaek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Rebecca FeoCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9414-2242
Tiffany ConroyCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0653-7960
Britt LaugesenClinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2029-7433
Siri Lygum VoldbjergClinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Mette GronkjaerClinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Kira JensenClinic North - Psychiatry, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Md Abdul AhadCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jolene ThomasCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alison KitsonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3053-8381
Birgitte LerbaekUnit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9196-5881

Funding

Flinders University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo describe the development and refinement of the Flinders Fundamentals of Care Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice through stakeholder feedback. The tool, based on the Fundamentals of Care Framework, supports healthcare leaders and clinicians in assessing fundamental care in a practical and user-friendly manner that embraces rather than minimises the inherent complexity of this care delivery as it occurs in practice.

designMulti-method study informed by participatory action principles.

methodsData collection involved an anonymous online survey and cognitive interviews with key stakeholders internationally to gauge perspectives on the clarity, usability, and acceptability of the tool. Data were collected between October-December 2023. Quantitative, categorical data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed via content analysis.

resultsParticipants described the Tool as Comprehensive, Practical, and Useful. Participants liked the visual representation of results in the form of bar and radar diagrams, which aided in interpreting the outcomes. The main suggestions for improvement were: (1) Simplifying items relating to the 'Context of Care' dimension of the Fundamentals of Care Framework; (2) Reducing similarity between some items; (3) Separating or simplifying items with multiple components; and (4) Clarifying terminology.

conclusionBased on stakeholder feedback, the Flinders Fundamentals of Care Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice is now digitised and includes a comprehensive instruction manual and definitions for each element of the Fundamentals of Care Framework assessed within the tool. The tool supports healthcare leaders and clinicians to assess fundamental care delivery at multiple levels-individual, team, unit/ward, organisational-identifying areas of strength and improvement to inform decision-making, planning, and quality improvement. The tool offers a way of assessing fundamental care holistically as a multi-dimensional construct rather than as a series of disaggregated tasks, better reflecting and capturing the complex reality of fundamental care delivery. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The Flinders Fundamentals of Care Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice supports real-time feedback (i.e., immediate visualisation of results), facilitating its integration in clinical practice to support enhanced fundamental care delivery. IMPACT: Seeking stakeholder feedback has enhanced the relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of the Flinders Fundamentals of Care Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice, facilitating its use as a decision-making and planning tool to support improved fundamental care delivery across clinical settings. REPORTING

methodThis study is reported using the CROSS and SRQR guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentdecision‐makingfundamental carefundamentals of care frameworkmeasurementquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40145373
PMCPMC12623677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.