ArticleNursing open2025
The Quality of Fundamental Care as Perceived by Nurses and Patients in a Hospital Setting: A Descriptive Comparative Study.
Article in Nursing open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Perceived Capability, Opportunity and Motivation to Deliver Fundamental Nursing Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Neurological Settings.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe and compare nurses' perceptions of the quality of fundamental care and related factors before and after a clinical development project, and to describe patients' perceptions of the quality of fundamental care.
designA descriptive, comparative study design.
methodsData were collected online from nurses in 2015 and 2021 with a structured questionnaire exploring fundamental care through 12 areas at the beginning and the end of a clinical developmental project. Patient experiences were collected with a paper-based questionnaire in 2021. A STROBE checklist was used as the reporting guideline.
resultsThe nurses assessed the overall quality of fundamental care as high at both data collection timepoints. However, the quality deteriorated in general and in specific areas, including skin condition and cleansing, elimination, nutrition and blood circulation, during the follow-up period according to the nurses' experiences. A correlation was found between the areas of the quality of fundamental care. The registered nurses and the nurse managers expressed that not all areas of fundamental care were part of their work. The patients' experiences were mostly good. A small number of patients expressed a need to deal with issues related to their wellness of mind during their care.
conclusionsThe quality of fundamental care was perceived as high by nurses and patients, but the quality deteriorated during the follow-up period. It may be that the Covid-19 pandemic and a general shortage of nurses in the hospital contributed to nurses having to decide how to prioritise their tasks between fundamental and specialised care. It is therefore recommended to further develop fundamental care in the hospital. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nursing roles and practices need to be reviewed and developed further to better support nurses in their work to provide high-quality fundamental care. A systematic evaluation of the quality of fundamental care is recommended. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients responded to the research questionnaire.
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.