Global reasons for missed nursing care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Fengxiang Gong PhD, YuChen Mei BSc, Mengying Wu BSc, Chao Tang PhD
{"title":"Global reasons for missed nursing care: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Fengxiang Gong PhD,&nbsp;YuChen Mei BSc,&nbsp;Mengying Wu BSc,&nbsp;Chao Tang PhD","doi":"10.1111/inr.13096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>While numerous studies have quantified the prevalence of reasons for missed care, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence across various health systems remains lacking.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To estimate the pooled prevalence of the reasons reported by nurses for missed care, using data from the MISSCARE surveys.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Missed nursing care, which refers to any aspect of essential patient care that is omitted or delayed, presents substantial risks to patient safety and the quality of care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methodology</h3>\n \n <p>Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus) were searched, without language restrictions. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate prevalence estimates and evaluate heterogeneity via prediction intervals. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess potential sources of heterogeneities. Time trends were estimated using linear regression modeling.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-eight studies (2011–2024) totaling 20768 nurses from 121 hospitals from 14 countries were included. The raw prevalence of missed care ranged from 6.8% to 98.1%, with a median of 56.4% (IQR: 41.0–75.4). The most frequently reported reasons were “unexpected rise in patient volume and/or acuity on the unit” (78.1%; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 71.5–54.1), “inadequate number of staff” (76.5%; 95% CI, 68.7–83.5), and “urgent patient situation” (73.5%; 95% CI, 66.6–79.9). Most of the investigated reasons for missed nursing care showed no significant changes over time.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This meta-analysis provides valuable insights that can inform interventions and policies aimed at mitigating missed nursing care, ultimately improving patient safety and healthcare outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for nursing and health policy</h3>\n \n <p>This study underscores the global prevalence reasons for missed nursing care. The findings call for comprehensive strategies to address this crucial challenge, regardless of geographic region and economic status of countries. However, special attention should be given to non-university hospitals and hospitals with specific demographic characteristics of nurses.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":54931,"journal":{"name":"International Nursing Review","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Nursing Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inr.13096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

While numerous studies have quantified the prevalence of reasons for missed care, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence across various health systems remains lacking.

Aim

To estimate the pooled prevalence of the reasons reported by nurses for missed care, using data from the MISSCARE surveys.

Introduction

Missed nursing care, which refers to any aspect of essential patient care that is omitted or delayed, presents substantial risks to patient safety and the quality of care.

Methodology

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus) were searched, without language restrictions. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate prevalence estimates and evaluate heterogeneity via prediction intervals. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess potential sources of heterogeneities. Time trends were estimated using linear regression modeling.

Results

Twenty-eight studies (2011–2024) totaling 20768 nurses from 121 hospitals from 14 countries were included. The raw prevalence of missed care ranged from 6.8% to 98.1%, with a median of 56.4% (IQR: 41.0–75.4). The most frequently reported reasons were “unexpected rise in patient volume and/or acuity on the unit” (78.1%; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 71.5–54.1), “inadequate number of staff” (76.5%; 95% CI, 68.7–83.5), and “urgent patient situation” (73.5%; 95% CI, 66.6–79.9). Most of the investigated reasons for missed nursing care showed no significant changes over time.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights that can inform interventions and policies aimed at mitigating missed nursing care, ultimately improving patient safety and healthcare outcomes.

Implications for nursing and health policy

This study underscores the global prevalence reasons for missed nursing care. The findings call for comprehensive strategies to address this crucial challenge, regardless of geographic region and economic status of countries. However, special attention should be given to non-university hospitals and hospitals with specific demographic characteristics of nurses.

缺失护理的全球原因:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:虽然许多研究量化了错过护理原因的普遍性,但仍然缺乏对各种卫生系统证据的全面综合。目的:利用MISSCARE调查的数据,估计护士报告的错过护理原因的总体流行率。导读:护理遗漏,是指患者基本护理的任何方面被遗漏或延迟,对患者安全和护理质量构成重大风险。方法:检索了四个数据库(PubMed, Web of Science, Embase和Scopus),没有语言限制。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估工具评估研究质量。随机效应荟萃分析用于计算患病率估计值,并通过预测区间评估异质性。进行亚组分析以评估异质性的潜在来源。使用线性回归模型估计时间趋势。结果:纳入28项研究(2011-2024),共纳入来自14个国家121家医院的20768名护士。遗漏护理的原始患病率从6.8%到98.1%不等,中位数为56.4% (IQR: 41.0-75.4)。最常见的报告原因是“患者数量和/或单位的视力意外增加”(78.1%;95%置信区间(CI) 71.5-54.1),“员工人数不足”(76.5%;95% CI, 68.7-83.5)和“病人情况紧急”(73.5%;95% ci, 66.6-79.9)。大多数被调查的错过护理的原因没有显示出明显的变化。结论:本荟萃分析提供了有价值的见解,可以为旨在减轻护理遗漏的干预措施和政策提供信息,最终改善患者安全和医疗保健结果。对护理和卫生政策的启示:本研究强调了全球普遍存在的护理遗漏的原因。研究结果呼吁,无论各国的地理区域和经济状况如何,都要采取全面的战略来应对这一重大挑战。然而,应特别注意非大学医院和具有特定护士人口特征的医院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Nursing Review is a key resource for nurses world-wide. Articles are encouraged that reflect the ICN"s five key values: flexibility, inclusiveness, partnership, achievement and visionary leadership. Authors are encouraged to identify the relevance of local issues for the global community and to describe their work and to document their experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信