| Literature DB >> 32161449 |
Noora Gustafsson1, Helena Leino-Kilpi1,2, Ivana Prga3, Riitta Suhonen1,2,4, Minna Stolt1,2.
Abstract
Missed care, defined as any aspect of patient care that is omitted or delayed, is receiving increasing attention. It is primarily caused by the imbalance between patients' nursing care needs and the resources available, making it an ethical issue that challenges nurses' professional and moral values. In this scoping review, conducted using the five-stage approach by Arksey and O'Malley, our aim is to analyze the patients' perspective to missed care, as the topic has been mainly examined from nurses' perspective. The search was conducted in April 2019 in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Philosophers Index databases using the following terms: omitted care, unfinished nursing care, care undone, care unfinished, missed care, care left undone, task undone and implicit rationing with no time limitation. The English-language studies where missed care was examined in the nursing context and had patients as informants on patient-reported missed care or patients' perceptions on nurse-reported missed care were selected for the review. Thirteen studies were included and analyzed with thematic content analysis. Twelve studies were quantitative in nature. Patients were able to report missed care, and mostly reported missed basic care, followed by missed communication with staff and problems with timeliness when they had to wait to get the help they needed. In statistical analysis, missed care was associated with patient-reported adverse events and patients' perceptions of staffing adequacy, and in patients' perception, it was mainly caused by lack of staff and insufficient experience. Furthermore, patients' health status, as opposed to gender, predicted missed care. The results concerning patients' age and education level were conflicting. Patients are able to identify missed care. However, further research is needed to examine patient-perceived missed care as well as to examine how patients identify missed care, and to get a clear definition of missed care.Entities:
Keywords: care left undone; omitted care; patient perceptions; unmet nursing care needs
Year: 2020 PMID: 32161449 PMCID: PMC7049852 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S238024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
Figure 1Flowchart on the article selection process.
Articles Included in the Analysis
| Authors, Year, Country and Number in the Reference List | Purpose | Methods/Sample | Instruments | Main Results | Validity/Reliability | Implications to Further Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiken et al 2018 UK | To inform policy decisions. | Cross-sectional survey study. Participants: patients (n=66,348) and nurses (n=2463). | Patients: NHS survey of inpatients. Nurses: The Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Working Index (PES-NVI) and report how many patients they cared for on their last shift and the amount of missed care. | 52.6% of patients rated care as excellent. 75.1% had confidence and trust in nurses and 60.4% said there were enough nurses. | Use of validated measures. Cross-sectional design allows no causal inferences about the associations found between patients’ perceptions of hospital care and nurse-reported missed patient care. | Not reported. |
| Bachnick et al 2018 Switzerland | To describe patient-centered care and explore the associations with nurse work environment and implicit rationing of nursing care. | A sub-study of a larger cross-sectional multi-centered study. | Patients: The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ), 4 items. Nurses: The Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Working Index (PES-NWI), 2 subscales used: 1. “Nurse manager ability, leadership, and support of nurses”, (Cronbach’s alpha 0.79.) 2. “Staffing and resource adequacy” (Cronbach’s alpha 0.83). The Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (BERNCA) Cronbach’s alpha 0.88. | Patients reported high levels of patient-centered care. Significant association was found between nurse-reported missed care and 3 out of 4 points of patient-centered care reported by patients: easy to understand (p=<0.0,05), enough information (p=<0.01), and treatment and care adapted (p=<0.01) as opposed to nurse-reported missed care and patient-reported involvement in decision-making. | Large sample and high response rate. Design allows no causality conclusions. Results have limited generalizability. Voluntary involvement might cause selection bias. Using all 5 subscales of PES-NWI might have changed the results. Patient surveys had an overall data omission rate of 26%. Some patients had help from staff when answering, which might have influenced the responses. | Further research is needed to identify and develop instruments to distinguish meaningfully between hospitals providing patient-centered care as well as to assess the relative values of various patient-centered care component mixes in specific contexts. |
| Cho et al 2017 South Korea | To examine the relationships between nurse staffing and patients’ experiences, and to determine the mediating effects of patient-reported missed care on the relationship between them. | Descriptive cross-sectional study. | The nurse manager survey measured the patient-to-nurse ratio. The nurse survey included nurse-perceived staffing adequacy: a 4-point scale varying from 1, very insufficient to 4, very sufficient. Patient-perceived staffing adequacy was measured using the same scale. | Patients reported missed basic care: mean 3.57 (SD 1.23) missed communication 2.02(SD 0.83) and timely responses 1.29 (SD 0.54). | Methodology allows no causal inferences about the associations found among nurse staffing, missed care, and patients’ experiences. Findings are only generalizable to the South Korean context. Patient and hospital characteristics that may have affected patients’ experiences were not adjusted for. Missed care might not indicate that patients did not receive the care in question due to the possibility that patients’ families were providing it. Effect sizes were not available to conduct a power analysis prior to data collection. | Not reported. |
| Orique et al 2017 USA | Describes aspects of missed nursing care, examines patient factors associated with missed care and describes a process for constructing a standardized missed nursing care metric. | A descriptive cross-sectional study. Data was collected using HCAHPS survey. | Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (the HCAHPS) survey. | Missed nursing care is significantly higher among patients reporting poorer health (p=<0.001). Patient’s age, gender or education level were not significantly associated with missed care. 38% of patients reported at least 1 missed nursing activity during their hospitalization. Most frequently missed were explanation of medication adverse effects (24.4%), assistance post discharge (21.5%), and instructions post discharge (14%). Free text part: 335 respondents identified at least 1 aspect of care being missed, including call light assistance (16.4%), symptom management (13.7%), teaching (11.9%), and toileting (10.1%). | Data was collected from one hospital, response rate 21%. Patients received surveys well after discharge which may influence their memory of care. The survey is limited to the USA, limiting generalizability. | Further research is needed to develop percentile ranks for benchmarking and comparison between organizations. |
| Bruyneel et al 2015 Belgium/Netherlands/Switzerland/USA | Study integrates previously isolated findings of nursing outcomes research into an explanatory framework in which care left undone and nurse education levels are of key importance | Cross-sectional data from eight countries. | Patients’ overall ratings of the hospital and their willingness to recommend the hospital, items derived from HCAHPS survey. | Patients report better care experiences in hospitals with better nursing work environments (0.324, indicates statistical significance). On a scale 0–13, nurses reported an average 1.79 (range 0.60–3.32) missed nursing care tasks in their last working shift. | Methodology allows no causal inferences. Omitted variable bias may have occurred by not including elements of nurse wellbeing, which also links with the main explanatory variables used and patient care experiences. It was not studied if the same effects persist across different shifts. While random effects were included for the hospital and country level, it cannot be concluded that all findings could be exactly replicated in each country. | Future research is needed about the expectations of patients regarding professional |
| Dabney B. & Kalisch B. 2015 USA | To explore patient reports of missed care and its relationship to unit’s nurse staffing levels. | Cross-sectional study, secondary analysis. | Patients: MISSCARE survey-patient questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha for overall instrument 0.838 and for the subscales 0.708–0.834. | Patients reported overall missed care average 1.82 (SD 0.62) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (care never missed) to 5 (care always missed). Mostly basic care 2.29 (SD 1.06), followed by missed communication 1.69 (SD 0.71) and timeliness 1.52 (SD 0.64). Age was a predictor of missed timeliness. A negative correlation was found between NHPPD and patient-reported missed timeliness (p=0.15) as opposed to NHPPD and missed basic care or communication (in contrast to previous studies). A significant negative correlation between RNHPPD and patient-reported missed timeliness (p=0.0002) as opposed to RNHPPD and patient-reported missed basic care or communication. (In contrast to previous studies). RN skill mix was negatively correlated with missed timeliness (p=0.0004) as opposed to missed basic care or communication. (In contrast to previous studies). | Results have limited generalizability. Sample was convenient. | Further research is needed to incorporate simultaneous data collection from both nursing staff and patients that should be conducted for comparison of reports of missed nursing care. Also, studies including other factors found to influence nursing care, like nurse interruptions, multitasking, and technology, should be conducted to explore relationships to the other missed care variables. |
| Lake et al 2016 USA | To describe the prevalence and patterns of missed nursing care and explore their relationship to the patient care experience. | Cross-sectional study, secondary data. Participants: patients (n=?) all that were available 10/2006-6/2007) and nurses (n=15,320). | Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. | Significant negative association between nurse-reported missed care and patient-reported rating of the hospital (p=<0.001), communication with nurses (p=<0.001), they always received help as soon as they wanted (p=<0.01), doctors always communicated well (p=<0.01), their room was always clean (p=<0.001), they received discharge information (p=<0.001), staff always explained medication (p=<0.001). | Methodology does not permit causal inference. There is a possibility of ecological bias. The aggregate data from HCAHPS do not make it possible to link individual patients with varying levels of satisfaction to individual nurses with varying levels of missed care. The HCAHPS data are limited in the degree to which they explore satisfaction with nursing care. Findings cannot be generalized. | Not reported. |
| Moreno-Monsiváis et al 2015 Mexico | Determine missed nursing care in hospitalized patients and the factors related to missed care, according to the perception of nurses and patients. | Descriptive cross-sectional study. | Patients and nurses: The MISSCARE survey. The first section included demographic and employment data on the nurses. The second section, called “Missed Nursing Care” had Cronbach’s alpha 0.89, and the third part “Reasons for Missed Nursing Care,” had Cronbach’s alpha 0.90. | Patient-reported overall nursing care provided: mean 83.29, SD 16.33, Median 86.36. Highest number of patients reported missed mouth care (by 32.1% patients), assistance with hand washing (29.4%), ambulation (20.3%), and support for changing position (17%). Emotional support for the patient and family was reported as missing by 43.7% of patents, followed by visits for assessments by other professionals, (26.2%), and evaluating the effectiveness of drugs (16.7%). 36.2% of patients reported shortcomings in education during hospitalization and 73.7% of patients reported missed discharge plan. Factors contributing to patient-perceived missed care: Lack of staff 18.1%, staff with insufficient experience 13.8%, lack of organization and teamwork 7.5%, lack of staff communication from one shift to another, and the attitude of staff members 5%. | Not evaluated. | Further research is needed about subsequent studies on missed care and associated factors to analyze the impact on patient outcomes. |
| Kalisch et al 2014 USA | To determine the extent and type of missed nursing care as reported by patients and the association with patient-reported adverse outcomes. | Cross-sectional study. | Patients: MISSCARE survey-patient questionnaire. | Patient-reported missed care was associated with patient’s poorer health status (p= < 0.0001), previous psychiatric problem (p = 0.002) and higher education level (p=0.32) as opposed to patient gender. Patients-reported overall missed care average 1.82 (SD 0.62) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (care never missed) to 5 (care always missed). Mostly basic care 2.29 (SD 1.06), followed by missed communication 1.69 (SD 0.71) and timeliness 1.52 (SD 0.64). Mouth care was missed 50.3% of the time, ambulation (41.3%), lifting to chair (38.8% missed) and bathing (26.9%). Providing information to patients was missed 27% of the time, discussing the treatment plan with patients (26.5% missed), considering the opinions of patients (20.4% missed), the patient knowing who their assigned nurse was (11.2% missed), and listening to the patient (7.8% missed). Timely help to the bathroom was missed 10.9% of the time, responding to beeping monitors (8.8% missed), and answering call lights (8.6% missed). Patient-reported overall missed nursing care was significantly associated with patient-reported skin breakdown (p=<0.05), medication error (p=<0.05), new infection (p=<0.05), IV running dry (p=<0.05) and IV leaking (p=<0.05). Patient-reported missed communication was significantly associated with patient-reported new infection (p=<0.05), IV running dry (p=<0.05) and IV leaking (p=<0.05). Patient reported missed timeliness was significantly associated with patient reported skin breakdown (p=<0.05), new infection (p=<0.05), IV running dry (p=<0.05) and IV leaking (p=0.05). Patient reported basic care was significantly associated with patient-reported medication error (p=<0.05), new infection (p=<0.05), IV running dry (p=<0.05) and IV leaking (p=<0.05). | Results cannot be broadly generalized. The sample was convenient. The demographic information of patients who did not participate is not available. The influence of social desirability on patient self-reports of nursing care could also impact the study results. However, the results of a comparison of patient reports with those of nursing staff were similar. | Further research is needed to demonstrate the effect of engaging patients and families more extensively in their nursing care. |
| Papastavrou et al 2014 Cyprus | To explore whether patient satisfaction is linked to nurse-reported rationing of nursing care and to nurses’ perceptions of their practice environment and to identify the threshold score of rationing by comparing the level of patient satisfaction factors across rationing levels. | A descriptive, correlational study. | Patients: The Patient Satisfaction scale, Cronbach’s alpha 0.93. | Mean patient satisfaction level was (range: 1–5) 4.01 (SD 0.64, range 2.29–5). Rationing, even at the lowest level (0.5), is significantly associated with areas of patient satisfaction. | No generalizability of the results. Sample was drawn from all the general state hospitals, which strengthens the findings. Some factors may intervene in the data collection to cause random error, including variations in the administration of the questionnaires in different units and the long period of data collection (1 year). The relatively high amount of non-responding nurses may also indicate the sensitivity of the subject. | Further research is needed about factors influencing care rationing, nurses’ critical thinking and decision-making processes, and the criteria used by nurses to allocate and distribute their resources. |
| Kalisch et al 2012 USA | To determine the elements of nursing care that patients can report and to gain insight into the extent and type of missed care experienced by a group of patients. | Descriptive study. | Nursing care that patients can report on include, for example, mouth care, bathing, pain medication, listening to patients, being kept informed and response to call lights. Areas of nursing care patients are somewhat able to report on include, for example, hand washing, vital signs, patient education, ambulation, discharge planning and medication administration. Areas of nursing care patients are unable to report on include, for example, nursing assessment, skin assessment and intravenous site care. Frequently missed cared reported by patients included mouth care, listening to patients, being kept informed, ambulation, discharge planning and patient education. | Not evaluated. | Further research is needed to investigate missed care in a non-punitive environment. Also specific aspects of nursing care need to be linked to patient outcomes to assist in determining how essential specific elements of care are and the cost-benefit balance of completing them or not. | |
| Shubert et al 2009 Switzerland | To describe the levels of implicit rationing of nursing care in Swiss acute care and to identify clinically meaningful thresholds of rationing. | Descriptive cross-sectional study. | Nurses: Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (The BERNCA) Cronbach’s alpha 0.93. The frequency of five adverse events and complications in inpatients. On a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “never” to “often,” nurses indicated the frequency of these adverse events in their patients over the past year. | Rationing level of 2 was significantly associated with patient satisfaction (p=<0.001). | Methodology allows no causal conclusions. Generalizability of the results is limited. The rationing levels may be higher than shown. It is impossible to select a random sample of the entire nurse population. Except for patient satisfaction, nurse reports of negative events in care were used as the dependent variables, rather than more objective data. The nurse reports of adverse events and the rationing data refer to different time frames (the preceding year for outcomes, the last 7 working days for rationing). | Further research is needed on validation of nurse reports as measures of incidents. Clinician-reported incidence of adverse events may be a type of measure worth using more extensively in research in this area. |
| Schubert et al 2008 Switzerland/USA | To explore the association between implicit rationing of nursing care and selected patient outcomes, adjusting for major organizational variables. | Descriptive cross-sectional study. | Nurses: Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (BERNCA). Cronbach’s alpha 0.93. | Based on the mean nurse level, on average, tasks were omitted slightly less frequently than “rarely” (mean 0.82, SD 0.53, median 0.77, range 0–2.68), on a scale 0–3. | Methodology does not allow causal conclusions. Generalizability of the results is limited. All outcomes in this study except patient satisfaction were assessed through nurse reports. | Further research is needed to deepen |