ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Missed Nursing Care From the Perspectives of Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Denmark.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Portuguese Version of the MISSCARE Survey-Patient: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Missed Nursing Care From the Perspectives of Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Denmark.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Through a Filter of Empathy and Understanding: Patients' Experiences of Missed Nursing Care.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify the prevalence and types of missed nursing care in a Danish hospital context from patients' perspectives and to examine associations between missed nursing care, patient demographics, and patient-reported adverse events.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsA total of 284 medical and surgical patients from 21 wards at a Danish university hospital completed the Danish version of the MISSCARE Survey-Patient. Descriptive statistics and analyses of associations between missed nursing care and patient demographics and adverse events were conducted.
resultsPatients reported an overall prevalence of missed nursing care of 15%, with most omissions occurring in the physical care domain (22%), followed by psychosocial care (13%) and timeliness (6%). The most frequently missed activities included oral care, clarity about which nurse was responsible for their care, repositioning in bed, and help with eating. Medication errors were significantly associated with higher missed nursing care scores across all domains, while associations with other adverse events and demographics were inconsistent.
conclusionPatients generally perceived a low prevalence of missed nursing care, although notable variations were observed across care domains and specific activities. Incorporating patient perspectives alongside nurse perspectives offers a more complete understanding of missed nursing care. IMPLICATION: Continuous assessment of missed nursing care from patients' perspectives could serve as a valuable complement to nurse-reported assessments, helping to identify specific areas for improvement. Targeted interventions addressing activities with higher patient-reported missed nursing care may enhance both care quality and patient outcomes. REPORTING
methodSTROBE guidelines were followed. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were not involved in the study's design, conduct, or reporting. IMPACT: This study highlights missed nursing care from patients' perspectives, revealing key care gaps. The findings can inform hospital administrators, nursing leaders, nursing educators, and policymakers in developing strategies to improve care quality and patient satisfaction.
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.