Missed nursing care in acute care hospital settings in low-middle income countries: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Missed nursing care (care left undone or task incompletion) is viewed as an important early predictor of adverse patient care outcomes and is a useful indicator to determine the quality of patient care. Available systematic reviews on missed nursing care are based mainly on primary studies from developed countries, and there is limited evidence on missed nursing care from low-middle income countries (LMICs). We propose conducting a systematic review to identify the magnitude of missed nursing care and document factors and reasons associated with this phenomenon in LMIC settings. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods and analysis:</ns4:bold> This protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will conduct literature searching across the Ovid Medline, Embase and EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases, from inception to 2021. Two independent reviewers will conduct searches and data abstraction, and discordance will be handled by discussion between both parties. The risk of bias of the individual studies will be determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Ethics and dissemination</ns4:bold> : Ethical permission is not required for this review as we will make use of already published data. We aim to publish the findings of our review in peer-reviewed journals </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>PROSPERO registration number:</ns4:bold> CRD42021286897 (27 <ns4:sup>th</ns4:sup> October 2021) </ns4:p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".