An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review.
Kylie McCullough, Lesley Andrew, Angela Genoni and 3 others
PMID 36566361WHAT IT FOUND
Primary health care nursing service evaluations were uneven.
Most measured patient outcomes only, not how services were organised or run. Few asked nurses themselves, so they do not fully describe nursing care.
Key findings
01Thirty-two studies evaluated nursing services based in a primary health care setting.
02Twenty-four studies evaluated service outcomes, while eleven evaluated service structure and seven evaluated service process.
03Of the twelve nurse-led service evaluations, only four asked nurses for their perspective.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only peer-reviewed English articles published between 2010 and 2022, so service evaluations in reports, other languages, or expert opinion pieces may be missing. Because primary care and PHC are used differently, some relevant PHC studies may have been missed. The included studies were from different countries and settings and used different quality measures, so they do not add up to one clear picture of PHC nursing service quality. Many studies used medical outcome measures and did not assess structure, process, or nursing-specific contributions. Only four of the twelve nurse-led service evaluations asked nurses for their perspective.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that nurse-led primary health care nursing services improve patient outcomes. The review examined how services were evaluated, not whether the services worked.