Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801313›Full record

ArticleJournal of nursing management2026

Missed Nursing Care Among Emergency and Critical Care Nurses: An Item-Level Network Analysis With Computer-Simulated Interventions.

Fanfan Lv, Na Wang, Yan Cao, Jia Jia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fanfan LvTaihe Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China, taihehospital.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9632-5040
Na WangTaihe Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China, taihehospital.com.
Yan CaoTaihe Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China, taihehospital.com.
Jia JiaSchool of Nursing, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China, hbmu.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2311-3556

Funding

Hubei Provincial Department of Education 24D088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe primary aim was to estimate the item-level conditional association network of missed nursing care among emergency and critical care nurses. Secondary aims were to identify central, bridge and perturbation-responsive activities and assess sensitivity to dose, parameterisation and dichotomisation.

backgroundMissed nursing care, defined as required care that is omitted, delayed or incomplete, is associated with poorer care quality and adverse patient outcomes. Studies in emergency and critical care have mainly examined total scores, item occurrence or associated factors. How individual omissions are conditionally related and whether frequently missed activities are also central, bridge care categories or respond most strongly to simulated perturbation remain unclear.

methodsThis study was a secondary analysis based on a previously established dataset of 3351 emergency and critical care nurses recruited through stratified cluster sampling from 22 tertiary Grade A hospitals in Hubei Province, China, between January and August 2025. Participants completed Part A of the MISSCARE Survey, comprising 24 missed care activities. Responses were dichotomised as no occurrence or any occurrence. An Ising network estimated conditional associations between binary activities. Expected influence (EI) measured signed overall connectivity, whereas bridge EI (BEI) measured signed connectivity with activities outside each care community. Bootstrap procedures assessed accuracy and stability. Using the NodeIdentifyR algorithm (NIRA), each calibrated node threshold was altered, in turn, in aggravating and alleviating directions, and exact changes in model-implied mean activation were calculated across all 2

resultsThe Ising network retained 109 of 276 possible edges, of which 108 were positive. Vital sign monitoring had the highest raw EI (8.97), followed by rehabilitation guidance and focused reassessment/care-plan updating. Pressure ulcer/wound/ostomy care had the highest raw BEI (6.94), followed by rehabilitation guidance and discharge planning/teaching. From a calibrated model-implied baseline of 4.93 active nodes, a 2-SD threshold increase for intravenous/drainage tube care yielded the largest aggravating increase in the mean number of active nodes (+5.67), whereas a 2-SD threshold decrease for emotional support yielded the largest alleviating decrease (-2.70). Emotional support and bathing/skin care were the only activities that remained among the five highest-ranked alleviating nodes at every examined dose in both parameterisations. BEI rankings were highly concordant between the Ising network and GGM (Spearman's ρ = 0.961), with four of the five highest-ranked activities shared.

conclusionsMissed nursing care formed a predominantly positive network. Frequently missed, central, bridge and perturbation-responsive activities were related but distinct. The NIRA findings are hypotheses derived from a cross-sectional model and do not represent observed intervention effects or causal estimates. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Occurrence frequency alone is insufficient for prioritisation. Centrality, bridge connectivity and simulated responsiveness provide complementary criteria for nursing audits and prospective evaluation. Emotional support and bathing/skin care warrant evaluation in longitudinal studies and intervention trials.

Indexed as

Critical Care NursingNursing CareAdultChinaFemaleHumansSurveys and Questionnairesbridge expected influenceemergency and critical care nursingmissed nursing carenetwork analysisNodeIdentifyRthreshold perturbation

Identifiers

PMID42801313
PMCPMC13616138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.