RNSystematic ReviewJournal of clinical nursing2018

Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene.

David A Richards, Angelique Hilli, Claire Pentecost and 2 others

PMID 29156087

WHAT IT FOUND

Across 149 nursing trials for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene, most were low quality and results were mixed or no clear effect.

Nurses cannot rely on any single intervention as proven.

Key findings

01The review included 149 experimental reports, but only 13 trials were judged high quality.

02Most trials were low quality, and positive findings were more common in less rigorous study designs.

03A high-quality multi-component trial combining exercise and scheduled toileting found effects for mobility and incontinence frequency.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 13 of 149 included trials were high quality; most were at risk of bias. Many trials did not specify a primary outcome, so the reviewers treated all outcomes as equally important and could not be sure which result mattered most. Positive findings were often offset by no-difference results in the same trial or other trials. The review searched only nurse-delivered interventions and English-language studies, so useful evidence from other disciplines or languages may have been missed. Interventions and outcomes were too varied to combine into one overall estimate, so the review is a descriptive map rather than a pooled result. Many participant health conditions were unspecified, especially in nutrition and mobility studies, so applicability to particular patients is uncertain.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that nursing interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene are proven. The review found only 13 high-quality trials. Positive findings were mostly from low-quality or bias-prone studies, and high-quality trials showed no clear effect or mixed results.

Read it on PubMed →