Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study

Open access
Feo, Rebecca, Conroy, Tiffany, Jangland, Eva, Muntlin Athlin, Åsa, Brovall, Maria, Parr, Jenny, Blomberg, Karin, Kitson, Alison·2018·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To generate a standardised definition for fundamental care and identify the discrete elements that constitute such care. Background: There is poor conceptual clarity surrounding fundamental care. The Fundamentals of Care Framework aims to overcome this problem by outlining three core dimensions underpinning such care. Implementing the Framework requires a standardised definition for fundamental care that reflects the Framework's conceptual understanding, as well as agreement on the elements that comprise such care (i.e., patient needs, such as nutrition, and nurse actions, such as empathy). This study sought to achieve this consensus. Design: Modified Delphi study. Methods: Three phases: (i) engaging stakeholders via an interactive workshop; (ii) using workshop findings to develop a preliminary definition for, and identify the discrete elements that constitute, fundamental care; and (iii) gaining consensus on the definition and elements via a two‐round Delphi approach (Round 1 n = 38; Round 2 n = 28). Results: Delphi participants perceived both the definition and elements generated from the workshop as comprehensive, but beyond the scope of fundamental care. Participants questioned whether the definition should focus on patient needs and nurse actions, or more broadly on how fundamental care should be delivered (e.g., through a trusting nurse–patient relationship), and the outcomes of this care delivery. There were also mixed opinions whether the definition should be nursing specific. Conclusions: This study has initiated crucial dialogue around how fundamental care is conceptualised and defined. Future work should focus on further refinements of the definition and elements with a larger, international group of practising nurses and service users. Relevance to clinical practice: The definition and elements, through ongoing refinement, will contribute to a robust evidence base that will underpin policy development and the systematic and effective teaching, delivery, measurement and evaluation of fundamental care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jocn.14247

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Metadata

Authors
Feo, R., Conroy, T., Jangland, E., Muntlin Athlin, Å., Brovall, M., Parr, J., Blomberg, K., & Kitson, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-12
Volume
27
Issue
11-12
Pages
2285-2299
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W2776178911
Cited by
265
References
32
FWCI
30.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jocn.14247
The paper
Feo, R., Conroy, T., Jangland, E., Muntlin Athlin, Å., Brovall, M., Parr, J., Blomberg, K., & Kitson, A. (2018). Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14247

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.