AIM: To obtain an overview of existing evidence on quality criteria, instruments, and requirements for nursing documentation.DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews.DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for the period 2007-April 2017. We also performed additional searches.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected the reviews using a stepwise procedure, assessed the methodological quality of the selected reviews, and extracted the data using a predefined extraction format. We performed descriptive synthesis.RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included. Several quality criteria were described referring to the importance of following the nursing process and using standardized nursing terminologies. In addition, some evidence-based instruments were described for assessing the quality of nursing documentation, such as the D-Catch. Furthermore, several requirements for formats and systems of electronic nursing documentation were found that refer to the importance of user-friendliness and development in consultation with nursing staff.CONCLUSION: Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important for high-quality nursing documentation. The lack of evidence-based quality indicators presents a challenge in the pursuit of high-quality nursing documentation.IMPACT: There is uncertainty in nursing practice about which criteria have to be met to achieve high-quality documentation. Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important. These findings can help nursing staff and care organizations enhance the quality of nursing documentation.
DOCUMENT
Assistive technology supports maintenance or improvement of an individual’s functioning and independence, though for people in need the access to assistive products is not always guaranteed. This paper presents a generic quality framework for assistive technology service delivery that can be used independent of the setting, context, legislative framework, or type of technology. Based on available literature and a series of discussions among the authors, a framework was developed. It consists of 7 general quality criteria and four indicators for each of these criteria. The criteria are: accessibility; competence; coordination; efficiency; flexibility; user centeredness, and infrastructure. This framework can be used at a micro level (processes around individual users), meso level (the service delivery scheme or programme) or at a macro level (the whole country). It aims to help identify in an easy way the main strengths and weaknesses of a system or process, and thus guide possible improvements. As a next step in the development of this quality framework the authors propose to organise a global consultancy process to obtain responses from stakeholders across the world and to plan a number of case studies in which the framework is applied to different service delivery systems and processes in different countries.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples' oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research.METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to 'oral health assessments', 'non-dental healthcare professionals' and 'older people (60+)' were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using "The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments" (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate).RESULTS: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene.CONCLUSION: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
DOCUMENT
