ArticleBMC nursing2026
Stoma care nurses' experiences using a clinical feedback system in routine outpatient follow-up: a qualitative 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA clinical feedback system (CFS) has been implemented in routine outpatient follow-up to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), enabling stoma care nurses (SCNs) to address patients' needs as they adjust to life with an ostomy. This study aimed to explore SCNs' experiences of using a CFS in routine outpatient follow-up within specialist healthcare services.
methodsThe study had an exploratory, inductive qualitative design. Semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted with fourteen SCNs at outpatient clinics in four hospitals. Data were analysed using Reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsAn overarching theme, Clinical feedback system as a tool for personalised and holistic follow-up care, was developed with three themes: (1) Providing and receiving information as preparation for consultation; (2) Seamless use of clinical feedback system during consultations; and (3) Shared language and use of visual features. SCNs experienced the use of the CFS as a valuable tool for promoting personalised and holistic follow-up care. They described the CFS as supporting preparation, providing structure to consultations, and enhancing patient involvement. The CFS was experienced as useful for mapping, assessing, and evaluating patients' adaptation processes, particularly in identifying areas of concern. SCNs described using the tool seamlessly within their existing practice while exercising clinical judgement. They experienced the visual features and the development of a shared, mutually understood language as facilitating meaningful dialogue during consultations. Although perceptions of its usefulness varied, SCNs emphasised that the CFS allowed flexibility and autonomy, enabling them to adapt its use to their consultation style and patients' individual needs.
conclusionThis study showed that SCNs experienced the CFS as more than a tool for assessing patient function and adaptation and described how it shaped the way they conducted follow-up consultations. The SCNs perceived that meaningful use in routine practice supported their work in tailoring holistic follow-up care to individual patients. These findings suggest that the use of a CFS in routine ostomy care has the potential to facilitate person-centred dialogue and support person-centred care. This study highlights an emerging, forward-looking nursing role in which digital tools are integrated into everyday practice to enhance personalised care. Developing structured training programmes for SCNs is essential to support the effective use of the CFS in clinical practice. Further research is warranted to inform the development, content, delivery, and effects of such programmes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881470What 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.