ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2026
Experiences and Impacts of Working in Organisations Undergoing Regulatory Scrutiny: An Integrative Review.
Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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
aimTo explore the experiences of healthcare staff in organisations undergoing regulatory scrutiny and to identify the professional and organisational impact.
designIntegrative review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. REVIEW
methodsThis review followed Whittemore and Knafl's framework, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Searches identified peer-reviewed studies from 2010 to 2025 examining healthcare staff under regulatory scrutiny. Studies employing diverse methodologies were included and synthesised using the constant comparison method to identify and refine key themes.
resultsEight studies were included. Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) workforce wellbeing, autonomy, and professional identity; (2) regulatory culture, organisational adaptation, and quality improvement; (3) communication and relationships; and (4) impact on patient care and contextual variation.
conclusionRegulatory scrutiny profoundly shapes healthcare quality and professional culture but can unintentionally undermine workforce adaptability and innovation essential for effective care. These findings highlight the need for nursing-sensitive regulatory approaches that support professional autonomy, reduce burden, and enhance patient-centred care. IMPACT: This evidence will inform nursing and midwifery policy and practice globally by providing support to inform nuanced, context-sensitive regulatory approaches that safeguard professional autonomy, reduce administrative burden, and promote safe, person-centred care across diverse healthcare settings. It will assist policymakers, healthcare leaders, and educators worldwide in enhancing workforce sustainability, patient safety, and care quality, facilitating the transfer of learning to varied healthcare environments and systems. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: 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.