ArticleBMC nursing2025
Development of nursing quality evaluation indicators system for pressure injury in orthopedics based on the Donabedian model: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC nursing, 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.
- Development of an evaluation indicator system for wound care quality based on the structure-process-outcome model: a mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Construction of orthopedic specialty nursing quality standards based on sensitive indicators.Medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aims to develop and validate a scientific and reliable set of nursing quality assessment indicators for orthopedic patients with pressure injuries based on the Donabedian model. The Delphi method was adopted for the selection and establishment of the indicators.
designDelphi method.
methodsWe developed an evaluation index system using a literature review and semi-structured interviews. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were conducted with 25 international experts to gather insights on indicators for orthopedic pressure injury care quality. The analytic hierarchy process was used to determine indicator weights. Consensus was defined as an average score of at least 3.5 and agreement from 75% of participants. Based on these criteria, we finalized the evaluation framework.
resultsThe final evaluation index system for nursing quality in orthopedic pressure injury management comprises 3 first-level indicators-structural quality, process quality, and outcome quality-along with 9 second-level and 26 third-level indicators. Both rounds of expert consultation achieved a 100% effective response rate. The expert authority coefficients were 0.890 for the first round and 0.934 for the second round. In the second consultation round, Kendall's concordance coefficients for the first, second, and third-level indicators were 0.186, 0.217, and 0.115, respectively (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe nursing quality evaluation index system for orthopedic pressure injuries developed in this study is scientifically valid and applicable to clinical practice. It provides a standardized reference for assessing nursing quality in managing orthopedic pressure injuries. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: The nursing quality evaluation index system for orthopedic pressure injuries, based on the Donabedian model, offers a structured framework for monitoring nursing quality. It standardizes nursing processes and improves resource allocation efficiency. Through outcome-based feedback, the system promotes continuous quality improvement, enhances service standardization, increases patient safety, and completes the quality management cycle. REPORTING
methodThis study was reported by the Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies (CREDES) guidance. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. 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.