Home › Research › Clinical safety
'Failure to Maintain': A theoretical proposition for a new quality indicator of nurse care rationing for complex older people in hospital
Bail K, Grealish L.. International journal of nursing studies, 2016-08-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This privileging, also known as implicit rationing, is theoretically and physiologically associated with a rise in the incidence of complications such as pressure injuries, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and delirium. Complex older patients, including those with dementia, are at higher risk of the complications, therefore should have higher delivery of prophylactic intervention (ie have higher care needs). 'Failure to Maintain' offers a conceptual framework that is inclusive of, and sensitive to, this vulnerable population.
Key findings
- This privileging, also known as implicit rationing, is theoretically and physiologically associated with a rise in the incidence of complications such as pressure injuries, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and delirium.
- Complex older patients, including those with dementia, are at higher risk of the complications, therefore should have higher delivery of prophylactic intervention (ie have higher care needs). 'Failure to Maintain' offers a conceptual framework that is inclusive of, and sensitive to, this vulnerable population.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of nursing studies) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27658271) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Bail, K., & Grealish, L. (2016). 'Failure to Maintain': A theoretical proposition for a new quality indicator of nurse care rationing for complex older people in hospital. International journal of nursing studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.08.001
Vancouver
Bail K, Grealish L. 'Failure to Maintain': A theoretical proposition for a new quality indicator of nurse care rationing for complex older people in hospital. International journal of nursing studies. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.08.001. PMID: 27658271.
BibTeX
@article{bail2016-27658271,
author = {Bail, K. and Grealish, L.},
title = {{'Failure to Maintain': A theoretical proposition for a new quality indicator of nurse care rationing for complex older people in hospital}},
journal = {International journal of nursing studies},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.08.001},
pmid = {27658271},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.08.001}
}