ArticleBMC nursing2026
Comparative evaluation of nurse-led versus traditional trauma services in plastic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional trauma care often experiences significant delays in surgical readiness due to fragmented coordination between surgical and nursing teams. Nurse-Led Trauma Services (NLTS) have emerged as a collaborative alternative to optimize clinical efficiency. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of an NLTS model compared to Traditional Trauma Services (TTS) in an emergency plastic surgery department.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 248 patients (NLTS: n = 107; TTS: n = 141) admitted to a tertiary emergency center in China for plastic surgical intervention following trauma. The NLTS model utilizes specialized nurses as proactive clinical partners exercising autonomy in real-time emergency management, precision surgical assistance, and multimodal pain protocols. This model integrates advanced wound technologies, specifically nano-silver antibacterial dressings, alongside nurse-driven early-mobilization. Conversely, the TTS model follows a physician-led framework where nursing actions are restricted to executing standardized instructions and conventional sterile dressings.
resultsBaseline demographics and injury etiologies were comparable between cohorts (p > 0.05). In terms of surgical efficiency, 100% of the NLTS cohort achieved same-day readiness, significantly outperforming the TTS cohort’s 94% (p = 0.043; RR: 1.060; 95% CI: 1.018–1.104). The NLTS model also demonstrated superior safety, with a significantly lower incidence of postoperative nausea (23% vs. 39%; p = 0.009). While differences in vomiting, dizziness, and infection were not statistically significant, the NLTS cohort reported zero instances of DVT or pressure sores, whereas the TTS cohort documented five cases (p = 0.072). Notably, the NLTS group experienced a significantly shorter median hospital stay (8 vs. 11 days; p < 0.001). This reduction likely reflects a synergistic effect between enhanced nurse-led coordination and the advanced wound care materials utilized in the NLTS protocol. Patient and caregiver satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the NLTS cohort (p < 0.001), while pain levels remained comparable (median VAS: 5; p = 0.355).
conclusionsThe NLTS model significantly enhances clinical efficiency, surgical readiness, and patient satisfaction. The observed reduction in hospitalization duration suggests that the integration of specialized nursing leadership with advanced clinical materials provides a superior framework for emergency trauma care, though outcomes result from the combined impact of organizational and technical interventions.
trial registrationNot 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.