ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Emotions in Nursing Care Prioritisation Decisions: A Critical Incident Debriefing Study of Missed Nursing Care.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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.
- Portuguese Version of the MISSCARE Survey-Patient: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Emotions in Nursing Care Prioritisation Decisions: A Critical Incident Debriefing Study of Missed Nursing Care.Journal of advanced nursing · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo examine the decision-making processes underlying missed nursing care.
designA qualitative study using Critical Incident Debriefing interviews.
methodsFifteen nurses from inpatient wards in a general hospital participated in semi-structured interviews following their morning shifts. Interviews focused on care prioritisation incidents leading to missed nursing care. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsAnalysis revealed a central theme of emotions as crucial determinants in care prioritisation decisions. Two subthemes emerged: emotions as drivers of care prioritisation decisions and emotions as responses to these decisions. Positive emotions motivated nurses to prioritise care for specific patients, while negative emotions sometimes led to care delays. Successful care completion generated professional satisfaction, while care omissions produced complex emotional responses, including guilt, frustration and helplessness.
conclusionThe dual emotional processes identified in this study-emotions functioning as both drivers and responses in care decisions-challenge purely structural explanations of missed nursing care. This perspective reframes nurses as emotionally engaged decision-makers who actively navigate care priorities rather than passively react to contextual constraints, offering a more comprehensive framework for understanding the complexity of clinical judgement in real-world settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This study positions emotions as legitimate components of clinical decision-making rather than cognitive biases. For nursing practice, this necessitates integrating emotional awareness into professional development. For patient care, recognising emotional underpinnings may promote equitable care distribution through interventions that engage with the emotional realities of nursing work. IMPACT: This study addressed limited understanding of decision-making in missed nursing care, particularly emotions' role. Findings reveal how emotions influence nurses' prioritisation decisions and wellbeing, with implications for nurses, educators and administrators seeking interventions addressing structural and emotional dimensions. REPORTING
methodThis study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines (Appendix S1). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.