4.5 Article

Missed nursing care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 2343-2352

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13392

关键词

COVID-19; nursing care; patient safety; quality of care; workload

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the frequencies, types of, and reasons for missed nursing care during the COVID-19 pandemic in inpatient wards. Results showed few differences between samples in missed care elements and no significant differences in reasons for missed care. Most participants perceived good quality of care and patient safety.
Aim: To evaluate frequencies, types of and reasons for missed nursing care during the COVID-19 pandemic at inpatient wards in a highly specialized university hospital. Background: Registered nurse/patient ratio and nursing competence are known to affect patient outcomes. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic entailed novel ways for staffing to meet the expected increased acute care demand, which potentially could impact on quality of care. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted, using the MISSCARE Survey. A sample of nursing staff during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 130) was compared with a reference sample (n = 157). Results: Few differences between samples concerning elements of missed care and no significant differences concerning reasons for missed care were found. Most participants perceived the quality of care and the patient safety to be good. Conclusion: The results may be explained by three factors: maintained registered nurse/patient ratio, patients' dependency levels and that nursing managers could maintain the staffing needs with a sufficient skill mix. Implications for nursing management: Nursing managers impact on the occurrence of MNC; to provide a sufficient registered nurse/patient ratio and skill mix when staffing. They play an important role in anticipatory planning and during infectious disease outbreaks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据