Predictors of missed infection control care: A tri-partite international study

Were the unfinished nursing care occurrence, reasons, and consequences different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Unfinished Nursing Care (UNC) has been documented also during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; however, while several secondary studies were conducted before this period to summarise occurrences, reasons, and consequences of UNC and provide a global picture of the phenomenon, no synthesis of the evidence produced during the pandemic has been documented to date. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify differences, if any, in the UNC occurrence, reasons, and consequences perceived by nurses caring for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This study is a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023410602). According to the Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcomes framework, primary comparative cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cohort studies, randomised/non-randomised controlled trials were included from Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus, collecting perceptions of nurses with tools measuring UNC between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and published in English, Italian, or Turkish. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and Johanna Briggs Quality Appraisal Tool were used, and findings were summarised narratively.

RESULTS

Five hospital-based cross-sectional studies using the self-administered MISSCARE and UNC Survey comparing data collected (a) before the pandemic vs. in the first wave; (b) before, in the second and in the third wave; and (c) simultaneously among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the second wave. Three main patterns emerged suggesting a higher UNC occurrence among COVID-19 patients in the first wave, less occurrence among them compared to non-COVID-19 patients in the second wave, and contrasting findings with some in favour and others in contrast to COVID-19 patients. Similar patterns emerged regarding UNC reasons while no studies investigated the UNC consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first wave, COVID-19 patients were likely to be at increased risk of UNC, while in later waves non-COVID-19 patients were at increased risk of UNC. Reasons also were different across waves. Findings documented during the COVID-19 pandemic may help to prevent UNC in future disasters.

An empirical analysis of the constructs of Fundamentals of Care Framework using structural equation modelling

AIM

First, to identify which aspects of missed care accurately define the integration of care and context of care dimensions of the Fundamentals of Care Framework. Second, to test the Framework for validity and reliability and lastly, to explore how leadership influences care integration.

DESIGN

A non-experimental research design using self-audit data collected information about variations in nursing care as exemplars for dimensions of the Framework.

METHODS

A multi-variate approach using path analysis was used to apply the consensus scores of 3079 Australian residential care nurses and carers to define the dimensions of the Framework.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

In the Australian residential care setting, the factors that define both the contexts of care and the integration of care dimensions constructs are now empirically established. The most direct predictor for the integration of care dimension arises from both the leadership and resource allocation variables, while the remaining context of care factors have indirect but significant effects. The integration of psychosocial care in the residential care sector is not influenced by any of the Framework's context-based factors.

CONCLUSION

The component variables of the Framework show both good reliability and convergent validity. These findings confirm a predictive relationship exists between the elements of the context of care and the different types of nursing activities that form the integration of the care dimension, including organizational leadership.