24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying gaps in global evidence for nurse staffing and patient care outcomes research in low/middle-income countries: an umbrella review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To identify nurse staffing and patient care outcome literature in published systematic reviews and map out the evidence gaps for low/middle-income countries (LMICs).

          Methods

          We included quantitative systematic reviews on nurse staffing levels and patient care outcomes in regular ward settings published in English. We excluded qualitative reviews or reviews on nursing skill mix. We searched the Cochrane Register of Systematic Reviews, the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until July 2021. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews -2 (AMSTAR-2) criteria for risk of bias assessment and conducted a narrative synthesis.

          Results

          From 843 papers, we included 14 in our final synthesis. There were overlaps in primary studies summarised across reviews, but overall, the reviews summarised 136 unique primary articles. Only 4 out of 14 reviews had data on LMIC publications and only 9 (6.6%) of 136 unique primary articles were conducted in LMICs. Only 8 of 23 patient care outcomes were reported from LMICs. Less research was conducted in contexts with staffing levels that are typical of many LMIC contexts.

          Discussion

          Our umbrella review identified very limited data for nurse staffing and patient care outcomes in LMICs. We also identified data from high-income countries might not be good proxies for LMICs as staffing levels where this research was conducted had comparatively better staffing levels than the few LMIC studies. This highlights a critical need for the conduct of nurse staffing research in LMIC contexts.

          Limitations

          We included data on systematic reviews that scored low on our risk of bias assessment because we sought to provide a broad description of the research area. We only considered systematic reviews published in English and did not include any qualitative reviews in our synthesis.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42021286908.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

            With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals.

              It is uncertain whether lower levels of staffing by nurses at hospitals are associated with an increased risk that patients will have complications or die. We used administrative data from 1997 for 799 hospitals in 11 states (covering 5,075,969 discharges of medical patients and 1,104,659 discharges of surgical patients) to examine the relation between the amount of care provided by nurses at the hospital and patients' outcomes. We conducted regression analyses in which we controlled for patients' risk of adverse outcomes, differences in the nursing care needed for each hospital's patients, and other variables. The mean number of hours of nursing care per patient-day was 11.4, of which 7.8 hours were provided by registered nurses, 1.2 hours by licensed practical nurses, and 2.4 hours by nurses' aides. Among medical patients, a higher proportion of hours of care per day provided by registered nurses and a greater absolute number of hours of care per day provided by registered nurses were associated with a shorter length of stay (P=0.01 and P<0.001, respectively) and lower rates of both urinary tract infections (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (P=0.03 and P=0.007, respectively). A higher proportion of hours of care provided by registered nurses was also associated with lower rates of pneumonia (P=0.001), shock or cardiac arrest (P=0.007), and "failure to rescue," which was defined as death from pneumonia, shock or cardiac arrest, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, sepsis, or deep venous thrombosis (P=0.05). Among surgical patients, a higher proportion of care provided by registered nurses was associated with lower rates of urinary tract infections (P=0.04), and a greater number of hours of care per day provided by registered nurses was associated with lower rates of "failure to rescue" (P=0.008). We found no associations between increased levels of staffing by registered nurses and the rate of in-hospital death or between increased staffing by licensed practical nurses or nurses' aides and the rate of adverse outcomes. A higher proportion of hours of nursing care provided by registered nurses and a greater number of hours of care by registered nurses per day are associated with better care for hospitalized patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                12 October 2022
                : 12
                : 10
                : e064050
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentHealth Services Unit , KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme , Nairobi, Kenya
                [2 ]departmentNuffield Department of Medicine , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ]departmentCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health , University of Nairobi , Nairobi, Kenya
                [5 ]departmentWellcome Trust Research Program , KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme , Nairobi, Kenya
                [6 ]departmentCentre for Maternal Adolescent Reproductive and Child Health , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Abdulazeez Imam; abdulimam2001@ 123456yahoo.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5070-3060
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0851-3711
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6874-8929
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-0826
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-064050
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064050
                9562716
                36223964
                2577468f-067c-4823-ab8e-39cbf1f50f1b
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 04 May 2022
                : 27 September 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 092654
                Award ID: 207522
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR);
                Award ID: NIHR130812
                Categories
                Global Health
                1506
                1699
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,health & safety,quality in health care,public health
                Medicine
                health policy, health & safety, quality in health care, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article