ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
Translation and Clinimetric Evaluation of SIPI, a Brief Instrument for Measuring the Complexity in Nursing Care.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring patient-level complexity of nursing care in acute medical wards is essential for staffing and care planning, yet validated brief instruments in Spanish settings are scarce. The Sistema Informativo della Performance Infermieristica (SIPI) is a brief, intervention-based index designed to quantify nursing-care complexity on general wards.
aimTo translate SIPI into Spanish and evaluate its clinimetric properties in acute medical hospital wards.
methodsA cross-sectional clinimetric instrument validation study. SIPI was translated into Spanish by two bilingual nurses, and a third bilingual nurse performed a back-translation, which was reviewed by one of the original SIPI authors to ensure semantic equivalence. Construct validity was assessed in 212 hospitalised patients in four internal medicine wards. Convergent validity was examined using nurses' perception of the complexity of care. Known-groups validity was assessed by examining whether SIPI behaved as expected in relation to patient age and admission type. The optimal cut-off was determined using a receiver operating characteristic analysis to evaluate discriminant validity.
resultsThe Spanish version was semantically equivalent to the original, with only minor wording adjustments. Convergent validity was supported: SIPI scores increased significantly across the four nurse-rated complexity levels and were significantly higher in patients rated as high versus low complexity. In the ROC analysis, SIPI discriminated high- from low-complexity patients with excellent accuracy (AUC = 0.94; 95% CI 0.91-0.97); the optimal cut-off of 53.50 yielded 88.4% sensitivity, 86.0% specificity, 87.6% positive predictive value and 86.9% negative predictive value. Known-groups validity was supported, as patients classified as high complexity by SIPI were significantly older than those classified as low complexity, and SIPI scores were significantly higher in urgent versus scheduled admissions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The Spanish version of SIPI offers nurse managers a brief, patient-level measure of nursing-care complexity that could complement existing staffing and workload systems to support early identification of high-complexity patients and more equitable, transparent resource allocation, pending confirmation in multicentre, outcome-based studies.
conclusionThe Spanish version of SIPI showed adequate clinimetric properties, similar to the original Italian version, supporting its use as a brief instrument for measuring the patient-level complexity of nursing care in acute medical hospital wards.
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.