Observational studyJournal of clinical nursing2026
The Impact of Nursing Resources on Chronic Wound Management: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Observational study in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reduced Clinical and Economic Burden Through Evidence-Based Dressing Selection for Wound Management: Findings From a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of negative pressure wound therapy combined with alginate dressings for wound management: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Best evidence summary for platelet-rich plasma treatment of chronic wounds.Regenerative therapy · 2026Review
- Nurse Staffing and Patient Outcomes: A Call to Action for Chronic Wound Care Policy Reform.Advances in wound care · 2025Article
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
Abstract
aimEvaluate the relationship between hospital nursing resources and outcomes among patients with chronic wounds.
designCross-sectional observational.
methodsHospital-level predictors included the nurse work environment, proportion of Bachelor of Science (BSN)-prepared nurses, and skill mix (i.e., registered nurses [RN] as proportion of nursing personnel). Outcomes included in-hospital and 30-day mortality, discharging to a higher level of care and length of stay. Individual-level nurse data were aggregated to create hospital-level measures of nursing resources. We utilised multi-level modelling with nurses nested within hospitals and outcomes at the patient level. DATA: Three datasets from 2021: RN4CAST-New York/Illinois survey, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review claims and American Hospital Association Annual Survey.
resultsThe sample included 34,113 patients with chronic wounds in 215 hospitals in New York and Illinois. In adjusted models, a 1 standard deviation improvement in the work environment was associated with 12% lower odds of in-hospital mortality, 8% lower odds of discharging to a higher level of care and a shorter length of stay by a factor of 0.96. A 10% increase in BSN composition was associated with 8% reduced odds of in-hospital mortality and 6% reduced odds of 30-day mortality. A 10% increase in skill mix was associated with 12% lower odds of in-hospital mortality and a shorter length of stay by a factor of 0.91.
conclusionImproved nursing resources are associated with better outcomes among patients with chronic wounds. IMPLICATIONS: Nurses manage the care of patients with chronic wounds; thus, hospital investment in nursing resources is imperative for good outcomes. IMPACT: Modifiable hospital nursing resources are associated with outcomes among patients with chronic wounds, a complex population. REPORTING: STROBE.
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.