ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Development and Validation of an Indicator System for Evaluating Clinical Nursing Process Quality Using Mobile Nursing Information Systems.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a readiness evaluation framework for public hospital-led digital home nursing services in China: a Delphi-AHP study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Formulation of a Walking Rehabilitation Nursing Protocol for Patients with Lower Extremity Arteriosclerosis Obliterans: A Delphi Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a standardized indicator system to assess clinical nursing process quality, leveraging a mobile nursing information system to enhance care efficiency and safety. Methods: A Delphi method was employed, with indicator weights assigned via a precedence ordering chart. Data from three distinct clinical departments were analyzed to test the system, focusing on 20 indicators spanning assessment, execution, guidance, and management domains. Results: Both rounds of expert consultation achieved 100% response rates, with high authority coefficients (0.89 and 0.90). Kendall's concordance coefficients indicated moderate agreement among experts (W = 0.21, P < 0.05; W = 0.129, P < 0.05). The mean importance scores for each indicator ranged from 3.85 to 5.00, with coefficients of variation ranging from 0.00 to 0.24. The final system included 4 primary indicators (assessment [weight: 0.438], execution [0.313], guidance [0.125], management [0.125]) and 44 secondary indicators. Significant variations emerged across departments. One department demonstrated significantly lower execution rates for subcutaneous, intradermal, intramuscular, and intravenous injections, nebulization inhalation, oral medication, and intravenous infusion compared to the other two departments ( Conclusion: The indicator system developed for evaluating the quality of clinical nursing processes within a mobile nursing information system demonstrated scientific reliability and validity, with appropriately assigned indicator weights. This system shows promise as a potentially effective means of evaluating the quality of clinical nursing processes. Future research could build on the results of this study to further validate the timeliness and objectivity of this indicator system in assessing the quality of the nursing process.
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.