Cited by 29Delphi Technique in ResearchHealthcare Quality and ManagementDialysis and Renal Disease Management

Construction of nursing‐sensitive quality indicators for haemodialysis using Delphi method

Gao, Ju‐Lin, Liu, Xiao‐Min, Che, Wen‐Fang, Xin, Xia·2018·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To provide a set of nursing‐sensitive quality indicators (NSQIs) for the evaluation of clinical nursing quality in haemodialysis unit. Background: There are no established objective indicators for evaluation of the quality of nursing care in haemodialysis units in China. Design and methods: We performed a literature search for eligible studies published from 2006–2016. A total of six studies were screened out from which 13 potential NSQIs were identified. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were conducted with the purpose of collecting opinions from a panel of independent experts. At last, 11 NSQIs were selected by consensus after exclusion of 8 NSQIs and addition of another 6 NSQIs. Results: Two rounds of expert inquiry were conducted; the questionnaire recovery rate was 100%. The average authoritative coefficients Cr for the two rounds were 0.79 and 0.90, respectively. The Kendall W values ranged from 0.273–0.388 (p < 0.001). Eleven NSQIs were identified: nurse‐to‐patient ratio, dialysis ultrafiltration rate compliance rate, KT/V compliance rate, incidence of emergency during haemodialysis, person‐time incidence rate of haemodialysis catheter‐related bloodstream infections, incidence of coagulation in extracorporeal circulation, incidence of blood loss in extracorporeal circulation, incidence of pseudoaneurysm induced by fistula puncture, incidence of falls among haemodialysis patients, emergency dialysis rate of outpatients and incidence of fistula complications. Conclusion: The identified NSQIs reflect three aspects of haemodialysis nursing quality: importance, rationality of calculation formula and applicability of data collection methods. Relevance to clinical practice: The study provides a reference for the evaluation of clinical nursing quality in haemodialysis units.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jocn.14607

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, J., Liu, X., Che, W., & Xin, X.
Affiliations
  • Department of Hemodialysis The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University Xi'an China
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xin, Xia
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-02
Volume
27
Issue
21-22
Pages
3920-3930
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W2809934159
Cited by
29
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (2017JM8141)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
Keywords
nursing-sensitive quality indicators, nursing quality assessment, nurse-to-patient ratio, catheter-related bloodstream infection, blood loss, pseudoaneurysm, fistula complications, falls, emergency dialysis, expert consensus
MeSH terms
China, Delphi Technique, Renal Dialysis, Humans, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Nursing Evaluation Research, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Consensus

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