RNSystematic ReviewJournal of clinical nursing2025

Introduction and Systematic Review of the Good Nursing Care Scale.

Tuula Mattila, Minna Stolt, Jouko Katajisto and 1 others

PMID 39394647

WHAT IT FOUND

Patients' ratings of nursing care were reported as high, but lower scores were reported for empowerment and family collaboration.

The scale was used in 10 countries, but it was not tested for tracking change over time.

Key findings

01Patients' overall assessment of nursing care quality was reported as high, while lower scores were reported for patient empowerment and collaboration with family members.

02Internal consistency was reported as good, with Cronbach's alpha reliability values from 0.79 to 0.95, but discriminant, convergent and divergent validity and responsiveness were not tested.

03The review tested 92 possible associated variables and found associations meeting the studies' significance threshold with 18, but five variables were inconsistent across studies.

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

The search was limited to English and Finnish publications and four databases, so relevant studies may have been missed. The review plan was agreed before the review but was not published or registered. Included studies often did not report study design, sample size calculation, handling of missing data, post hoc analyses or conflicts of interest. The studies were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis, so the synthesis is descriptive rather than a combined effect estimate. High patient ratings may be influenced by loyalty, social desirability or evaluation apprehension. Important validity and responsiveness properties were not tested across the included studies. The scale may also have been used in theses or intervention studies that were not included.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funder named: Turun Yliopisto and Varsinais-Suomen Sairaanhoitopiiri.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read high patient ratings as proof that nursing care quality is uniformly good. The review reported lower scores for empowerment and family collaboration, and it says high ratings can be influenced by loyalty, social desirability or evaluation apprehension.

Read it on PubMed →