ArticleBMC nursing2025
How is individualized nursing care documented in nursing records of cancer patients: A qualitative content analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nursing record is essential for displaying the content and results of nursing care for persons with severe and advanced cancer in treatment and palliative cancer wards. The nursing care plan (NCP), which uses standardized terminology, organizes the nursing record. Individualization of the standards is necessary to promote person-centered care.
aimTo explore how individualized care is documented in the nursing records of persons and their families in treatment and palliative cancer care.
methodNursing records containing NCPs and progress notes for 29 inpatients from cancer treatment and palliative wards in three hospitals in Norway were explored utilizing qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe NCPs elicited a limited image of the patients' situations and care needs, mainly conveyed through standardized terminology. The progress notes appeared as the leading source of information about the patients. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) unutilized opportunities for individualized documentation in the NCPs, (2) incongruence between the NCPs and the progress notes, and (3) progress notes-an alternative route for documenting individualized care.
conclusionsThe study showed severe limitations in terms of the use and individualization of the NCP in the electronic health record (EHR). These limitations could be related to the cumbersome functionality of the EHR and the fact that the NCP targets efficiency and data availability purposes beyond being a tool for nursing care planning. The relational and dynamic aspects of nursing care were thinly captured, especially when documenting in a standardized format. EHR systems should be adapted to today's technology to a greater extent and adjusted to the individual patient's needs and experiences in cooperation with nurses as end users. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.