ReviewJournal of caring sciences2025
Quality Improvement Checklist for Nurses in Critical Care Units: Development and Validation.
Review in Journal of caring sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patient in critical care units (CCUs) are admitted with multiple clinical problems and busy environment with critical situations makes nurses prone to commit mistakes. Thus, the quality checklist helps the staff in providing adequate, safe, and efficient client care. The objective of the present study was to develop quality improvement checklist for nurses working in CCU. Methods: A methodological study was carried out to develop quality improvement checklist for CCU in different phases. Validity was measured in terms of face, content, and construct validity. Modified Delphi technique used for content validity. Construct validity was analyzed by factor analysis. Reliability was investigated in terms of internal consistency of checklist and inter-rater reliability. Results: There were a total of 32 items in the final draft of the checklist. Cronbach's alpha which 0.78 was. Cohen's kappa was 0.88. Inter-item correlation was found between 0.2 and 0.7. The content validity index (CVI) was 0.98. All items were loaded in 8 factors and accounted for 60.7% of variance. Conclusion: Quality improvement checklist has good validity and reliability and it can be used to evaluate and improve the quality of CCU.
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.