Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The original MISSCARE Survey was developed in the US in the early 2000s to assess the amount of missed nursing care. Because additional causes of missed care were detected in later years, the MISSCARE Survey was further developed in 2019 by adding one item in Part A and five items in Part B to the questionnaire. Neither the original nor the revised MISSCARE Survey is translated into Norwegian, so a questionnaire is needed to assess missed nursing care in Norway. This study aims to translate and adapt the revised MISSCARE Survey for use in Norwegian hospitals.

Methods

A forward translation, followed by an expert panel's back-translation, cognitive interviews, and final version testing were conducted. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to investigate the underlying factor structure. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was employed for a test–retest evaluation. IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29) was used for all analyses.

Results

A total of 120 nurses and nursing assistants took part in the study assessing the psychometric properties of the Norwegian adaptation of the revised MISSCARE Survey. The exploratory factor analysis for Part B revealed four factors, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.895, and Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.841 to 0.751, reflecting good internal consistency. The overall test–retest ICC was 0.894 for Part A and 0.827 for Part B, indicating strong reliability.

Conclusions

The revised MISSCARE Survey adapted for use in Norwegian hospitals is a reliable and promising instrument for assessing missed nursing care in medical and surgical units within a local Norwegian hospital. However, further studies should be conducted to confirm the factor structure in larger and more diverse populations.

Keywords

pilot study nursing questionnaire validation

Introduction

Missed nursing care, also known as care left undone, refers to care that is delayed, only partially completed, or not completed at all (Kalisch et al., 2009). Incomplete nursing care involves a problem (insufficient resources or time), a process (clinical decision-making to prioritize and ration care), and an outcome (unfinished care) (Jones et al., 2015; Kalánková et al., 2019). Missed, rationed, or unfinished nursing care is a significant concern due to its lack of comprehensive understanding, highlighting the need for further exploration (Kalánková et al., 2019).

Review of the Literature

Several studies show many negative consequences when the care is left undone or missed (Ball et al., 2018; Duffy et al., 2018; Gathara et al., 2020; Kalisch & Lee, 2012; Kalisch et al., 2012a, 2012b) and is therefore a threat to patient safety (Ball et al., 2018; Chaboyer et al., 2021; Kalánková et al., 2019; Kalisch & Lee, 2012; Liu et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2022; Recio-Saucedo et al., 2018). Reported negative consequences associated with missed care are patient falls (Kalisch & Lee, 2012; Kalisch et al., 2012b), prolonged hospital stays and delayed discharges, heightened pain and discomfort, physical disabilities (Duffy et al., 2018), reduced quality of life, and a higher incidence of pneumonia, urinary tract infections, sepsis, medical management errors, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired infections (Ball et al., 2018; Kalisch et al., 2012a, 2012b). The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that unsafe care results in the loss of 64 million disability-adjusted life years annually worldwide (WHO, 2021).

The MISSCARE survey was created to identify nursing tasks that were either partially or entirely omitted, or delayed, and to understand the circumstances leading to incomplete care in the United States during the early 2000s (Kalisch, 2006; Kalisch & Williams, 2009). Numerous studies have identified the primary causes of missed nursing care as staffing shortages (Ball et al., 2014; Chaboyer et al., 2021; Danielis et al., 2021), inadequate material resources, poor communication (Chaboyer et al., 2021; Dutra & Guirardello, 2021; Saqer & AbuAlRub, 2018), excessive workload (Chaboyer et al., 2021; Du et al., 2020), lack of readiness for unforeseen situations, challenges in a suboptimal work environment, and ineffective organizational planning (Andersson et al., 2022). Studies also indicate that missed or incomplete nursing care is primarily attributed to time constraints (Kalánková et al., 2019), and that planning and communication are more frequently reported as missed care compared to clinical procedures and patient monitoring/observation (Griffiths et al., 2018).

Since Beatrice Kalisch and her team developed the MISSCARE survey in the early 2000s (Kalisch & Williams, 2009), the questionnaire has been translated from US English into many different languages (Bragadóttir et al., 2015; Danielis et al., 2021; Kalisch et al., 2012a; Lisby et al., 2023; Nymark et al., 2020; Siqueira et al., 2013). The MISSCARE Survey was further revised in 2019 because additional causes of missed care were detected (Dabney et al., 2019). Neither the original nor the revised MISSCARE Survey is translated into Norwegian. Several studies emphasize the necessity of gaining deeper insights into the reasons for missed nursing care (Fennelly et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017; Papathanasiou et al., 2024; Patterson et al., 2017). Numerous studies also show that the MISSCARE survey is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating clinical nursing practice and understanding the reasons behind missed care (Bragadóttir et al., 2015; Danielis et al., 2021; Kalisch et al., 2012a; Lisby et al., 2023; Nymark et al., 2020; Siqueira et al., 2013). In comparison to other available tools for measuring the frequency or prevalence of unfinished care in hospitals, the MISSCARE survey is the only measure designed to address the causes of missed care, making it possible to identify its antecedents, designing actions and evaluate their effectiveness (Palese et al., 2021). This study therefore aims to translate and adapt the revised MISSCARE Survey for use in Norwegian hospitals.

Methods

The process of translation, adaptation, and validation of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey followed international guidelines for translating, adaptation and validation of instruments (Cruchinho et al., 2024; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011), including initial translation, back-translation, expert committee review, cognitive interviewing, validation, and evaluation of psychometric properties.

The Revised MISSCARE Survey

Part A in the revised MISSCARE Survey contains 25 items (nursing care tasks) (Dabney et al., 2019) compared to 24 in the original questionnaire (Kalisch & Williams, 2009). The respondents are requested to indicate how often each task is missed in their unit using a 5-point Likert scale. The response options range from “always missed” to “never missed”. Part B of the revised version (Dabney et al., 2019) includes 22 items, an increase from the 17 items in the original version (Kalisch & Williams, 2009). These items address reasons for missed nursing care. The response options are presented on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “a significant reason” to “not a reason” for missed nursing care (Dabney et al., 2019).

The Translation Process

A professional translation company conducted the forward translation of the questionnaire. The researchers (KG and BA), both registered nurses (RNs) with PhDs, thoroughly reviewed the translations and identified expressions and other discrepancies that needed to be resolved. The preliminary translated version was reviewed by an expert panel consisting of four RNs from the hospital: one holding a PhD, one with a master's degree, and two with bachelor's degrees. After receiving feedback from the expert panel, a consensus was made on a preliminary version. Then, two independent translators with PhDs, one RN and one health science researcher, performed the back-translation from Norwegian to English. The translators were blind to the original version.

To validate the back-translation against the original version, three clinically experienced RNs, one professor, and two PhD candidates were asked to evaluate each item individually. They were instructed to indicate whether they perceived the translation as having “exactly the same meaning” (both content and wording were identical), “almost the same meaning” (content was the same but wording differed), or “different meaning” (both content and wording differed). To assess the face validity of the questionnaire, the first author held two meetings with RNs working in the clinic, during which the items were presented. The nurses were encouraged to comment if the questions were unclear, or if there were phrasings they did not understand. We also invited eight undergraduate nursing students, working as nursing assistants at the hospital, to comment if the questions were uncertain or if there were expressions, they did not comprehend. In the final step, after reviewing the back-translation ratings along with the face validity testing results, the research team agreed on a final Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey. This version included some modifications, clarifications, or refinements to fit the Norwegian context and culture better, described in the supplementary file “Modifications of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey.” The response alternative “not relevant” for Part A was also added as an option because some of the listed nursing care activities are irrelevant for some hospitalized patients in some care contexts in Norwegian hospitals.

The Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Norwegian Version of the Revised MISSCARE Survey

Participants

The inclusion criteria for the study evaluating the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey were RNs and nursing assistants working in a medical or surgical department offering 24-7 care at a local hospital in Mid-Norway. The hospital has approximately 90 medical and surgical beds. The exclusion criteria were RNs and nursing assistants working in outpatient departments and the intensive care unit. From October to November 2022, a sample of 193 eligible RNs and nursing assistants were invited to participate in the study. The participants answered the questionnaire on two occasions as a test and retest, with 2 to 3 weeks between the first and the second invitation. The questionnaire was sent to each participant's email address at the hospital. One reminder was sent to the participants.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 29. The study population's characteristics are presented in terms of numbers and proportions. Acceptability is measured by the number and proportion of missing responses for each of the items in Part A (nursing care tasks) and Part B (reasons for missed nursing care tasks). Construct validity for Part B was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with each potential factor representing an underlying construct of missed care. The purpose of EFA is to uncover the latent (unobserved) structures or factors that explain the patterns of correlations among observed variables. Factor loadings of more than 0.3 are acceptable, communalities should exceed 0.2, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure should be greater than 0.6. Reliability was evaluated through standard measures of internal consistency and test–retest reliability, such as Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (Polit & Beck, 2012). Cronbach's Alpha calculates the average correlation among items in a scale, where a higher alpha value (above 0.70) indicates good internal consistency. The ICC value ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater reliability. Values less than 0.50 are considered poor reliability, while values from 0.50 to 0.75 and from 0.75 to 0.90 are considered as moderate and good reliability, respectively. Values greater than 0.90 are excellent reliability.

Ethical Considerations

The participants received written information about the purpose of the study, highlighting that their involvement was voluntary and that completing the web-based questionnaire implied their consent. No directly identifiable personal or sensitive data was collected. The Data Access Committee (DAC) at Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust (DAC ref. 2022_2333) approved all procedures related to the handling and storage of personal data, in accordance with Norwegian legislation (Act on the Processing of Personal Data, 2022; The Norwegian Health Research Act, 2021).

Results

Figure 1 The translation and validation process illustrates the process of translating, adapting, and validating the revised MISSCARE Survey in Norwegian.

Figure 1.

The translation and validation process.

Demographics

We received responses from 120 out of the 193 eligible participants, resulting in a response rate of 62.2%. Table 1 provides an overview of the study sample's characteristics. There were 103 RNs and 13 nursing assistants. Four participants indicated they had a different role but did not specify the nature of that role. Approximately 80% of the participants were under 55 years old, with the majority being female. Around 80% held a bachelor's degree, and 90% worked in shifts. Over half of the sample had an overall work experience of 10 years or more, and approximately 40% had over a decade of experience in their current unit.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Characteristics	N = 120
Role (%)
Registered nurses	103 (86)
Nurse assistants	13 (11)
Other	4 (3)
Wards (%)
Surgical	46 (38)
Medical	71 (59)
Other	3 (3)
Highest level of education (%)
Primary school	-
High school	12 (10)
Bachelor's degree	97 (80)
Master's degree or higher	10 (8)
Sex (%)
Female	103 (86)
Male	16 (13)
Age groups (%)
<25 years	9 (8)
25–34	30 (25)
35–44	24 (20)
45–54	33 (28)
55–64	21 (18)
65 +	2 (2)
Working hours per week (%)
<30	24 (20)
≥30	95 (79)
Work-shifts (%)
Only daytime	12 (10)
Nightshifts	7 (6)
Day /afternoon shifts	29 (24)
Day/afternoon/night shifts	71 (59)

Acceptability

The proportion of participants who fully completed the survey, without leaving any items blank, was 95.8% for Part A and 90.8% for Part B. No participants left either Part A or B completely blank.

Construct Validity

Cases with missing data were excluded from the EFA for Part B. The EFA revealed a KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.895, suggesting that the correlation patterns are fairly tight. Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant, with a p-value less than 0.001. Factors were extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the analysis indicated a four-factor solution, as shown in Table 2 below. The factor loadings ranged from 0.483 to 0.737 which is considered acceptable. However, the two items with loadings close to 0.4 (items 4 and 16) may indicate that these items are less strongly related to factors 1 and 2, respectively. Furthermore, each item showed sufficient loading on at least one factor; however, 12 items (items 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) exhibited loadings on two factors. The items’ wording in the revised MISSCARE Survey as presented in Table 2 has been condensed to keywords. The precise phrasing can be found in the original and revised MISSCARE Survey papers (Dabney et al., 2019; Kalisch & Williams, 2009).

Table 2.

Factor Structure and Internal Consistency.

Factor	Cronbach's α	Items		Mean	SD	Factor loadings
1	.841	6	Medications unavailable	3.04	.728	0.737
		8	Care not provided by other departments	3.06	.701	0.678
		10	Supplies/equipment malfunction	3.18	.687	0.647
		7	Inadequate hand-off	3.03	.607	0.630
		19	Inadequate supervision of nursing assistants	3.33	.649	0.547
		9	Supplies/equipment unavailable	2.95	.708	0.541
		4	Inadequate assistive/clerical personnel	2.35	1.071	0.483
2	.834	22	Inadequate leadership support	3.13	.844	0.781
		18	Emotional/physical exhaustion	2.82	.903	0.594
		21	Lack of cues/reminders	3.15	.647	0.591
		16	Caregiver unavailable	2.89	.787	0.459
		17	Heavy admission/discharge activity	2.13	.960	0.552
		5	Unbalanced patient assignments	2.51	.870	0.540
		20	Interruptions/Multitasking	2.31	.921	0.503
3	.817	14	Tension with medical staff	2.73	.816	0.676
		13	Tension within nursing team	3.21	.621	0.660
		12	Tension with ancillary/support departments	3.27	.600	0.621
		11	Lack of team backup	3.23	.735	0.581
		15	Nursing assistant communication failure	3.17	.696	0.536
4	.751	2	Urgent patient situations	2.07	.908	0.812
		3	Unexpected patient volume/acuity	1.64	.826	0.783
		1	Inadequate staff	1.71	.834	0.622

Test–retest reliability was evaluated with a sample of 33 participants. The overall test–retest ICC was 0.894 for Part A and 0.827 for Part B, indicating strong reliability. The Cronbach's alpha values for the four factors ranged from 0.841 to 0.751, reflecting good internal consistency, as shown in Table 2.

Discussion

Several studies have emphasized that we need a deeper insight into reasons for missed nursing care (Fennelly et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017; Papathanasiou et al., 2024; Patterson et al., 2017). To the best of our knowledge, there is no reliable and valid Norwegian tool available for assessing clinical nursing practice and understanding the reasons for missed care. Since The MISSCARE Survey has been translated into many languages and found to be a valid and reliable tool for assessing missed nursing care, this study aimed to translate and adapt the revised MISSCARE Survey (Dabney et al., 2019) for use in Norwegian hospitals. When following international guidelines for translating, adapting, and validating instruments (Cruchinho et al., 2024; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011), we discovered that translating and adapting the US-developed MISSCARE Survey for use in Norwegian hospitals was challenging. During the translation process, we needed to make some linguistic changes, modifications, clarifications, or refinements to make the questionnaire appropriate for the cultural context of Norway. Other Nordic researchers (Bragadóttir et al., 2015; Lisby et al., 2023; Nymark et al., 2020) have also reported some challenges when translating the MISSCARE Survey into Icelandic, Danish, and Swedish. For instance, the term “nursing assistant” used in item 15 Part B “Nursing assistant did not communicate that care was not provided” did not apply to the Danish way of organizing nursing in hospital units (Lisby et al., 2023). Finding equivalent words, both in content and semantic terms in some items was also described as challenging when translating the questionnaire into Swedish (Nymark et al., 2020), while Bragadottir and co-workers found that missed nursing care was a relatively new concept in nursing, and Icelandic nurses were unfamiliar with it (Bragadóttir et al., 2015). This brought several challenges when translating the MISSCARE Survey into Icelandic.

Nevertheless, the main finding of this study was that the Norwegian adaptation of the revised MISSCARE Survey is a reliable and promising instrument for assessing missed nursing care in medical and surgical units in Norwegian hospitals. Unlike the findings of Dabney and colleagues (Dabney et al., 2019), our analysis revealed that Part B of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey is composed of four factors, while the original MISSCARE survey (Kalisch & Williams, 2009) and the revised version (Dabney et al., 2019) show that Part B is composed of three factors. The first factor pertains to the quality and level of communication within the healthcare team, the second factor relates to labor resources including staffing and multitasking, and the third factor involves material resources such as supplies and medications (Dabney et al., 2019; Kalisch & Williams, 2009).

The EFA analyses in this study as presented in Table 2 show that items 6, 8,10, 7,19, 9, and 4 are included in factor one, which we interpret as the level and quality of external resources and supplies. The items assess whether there is a lack of essential supplies and equipment, whether the hand-offs and supervision of nursing assistants and assistive/clerical staff are insufficient, and whether care is provided by other departments. The seven items 22, 18, 21, 16, 17, 5, and 20 encompass factor two and reflect the quality and extent of necessary internal management support as these items target leadership support, workload, interruptions and the availability of caregivers. Items 14, 13, 12, 11, and 15 are included in factor three, representing the quality of communication and collaboration. These items address tensions and communicative challenges with the medical staff, nursing team, and ancillary/support departments. Lastly, factor four includes items 2, 3, and 1, which we interpret as indicating critical work overload or care burden.

The differences in the factor structure between the Norwegian and US versions of the revised MISSCARE Survey (Dabney et al., 2019) could be due to several factors. One possible explanation is the cultural variations in the organization of hospital care between Norway and the US (Øyri et al., 2023). Norway's universal healthcare system is funded through taxes, emphasizing equal access to healthcare services for all citizens and prioritizing preventive care. This may influence the types of missed care reported and the factors identified in the survey. Furthermore, because nursing care is shaped by cultural contexts, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire might vary depending on the culture (Cao et al., 2023). Given that this study identified an alternative factor structure in the revised MISSCARE Survey (Dabney et al., 2019), more studies are needed to gain deeper knowledge about the factor structure. The anticipated three-factor model in the Swedish study was not validated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) either (Nymark et al., 2020).

Strengths and Limitations

One strength of this study is that it is the first study aimed to translate and adapt a measure for assessing missed nursing care in Norway. Even though this study did not achieve excellent scores for cross-cultural validity, and our study sample was relatively small, the sample is above the threshold for conducting EFA analyses (Cruchinho et al., 2024). Part B in the revised MISSCARE Survey consists of 22 items, and the minimum sample size is five to 10 individuals per item. Thus, a higher ratio increases the likelihood of achieving a strong factor structure model. However, there are some limitations. One limitation is that the study was conducted in a single local hospital within the health region, leading to a limited sample size (N = 120). The small sample size did not allow us to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to potentially confirm the factor structure detected in the EFA, as using the same sample of 120 individuals for both EFA and CFA is considered an undesirable practice (Lorenzo-Seva, 2022). Therefore, additional research is necessary to explore the factor structure of the revised MISSCARE Survey in Norway.

Implications for Practice

This study has several clinical and organizational implications. The Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey can be used to identify areas where nursing care is missed in medical and surgical departments, thereby improving patient care and monitoring care quality. The survey may be used to guide hospitals in allocating resources more efficiently to areas that need them the most and identify the need for required support. The instrument can also be used to further investigate the quality of communication and collaboration, which may enhance teamwork and coordination among care personnel, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Finally, having an instrument that can identify critical work overload or care burden can be used to implement strategies to manage workload more effectively, ensuring that nurses are not overburdened and can provide high-quality care. Nonetheless, further studies should be conducted to confirm the factor structure in larger and more diverse populations.

Conclusion

This study found that the Norwegian adaptation of the revised MISSCARE Survey is a promising instrument for assessing missed nursing care in medical and surgical departments within Norwegian hospitals. The EFA revealed that Part B of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey comprises a four-factor structure and that the instrument demonstrates good internal consistency. One factor represents the quality and level of external resources, another is about required support, the third focuses on the quality of communication and collaboration, and the fourth is about critical work overload or care burden.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-son-10.1177_23779608251332742 - Supplemental material for Translating, Adapting and Validating the Revised MISSCARE Survey for Use in Norwegian Hospitals—A Pilot Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-son-10.1177_23779608251332742 for Translating, Adapting and Validating the Revised MISSCARE Survey for Use in Norwegian Hospitals—A Pilot Study by Kjersti Grønning, Melliane Muteba Olsen and Beate André in SAGE Open Nursing

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the experts who collaborated with us in the translation and face validity process. We also thank the nurses and assistant nurses who participated in the web-based survey to study the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the revised MISSCARE Survey. Thanks to the Nordic Missed Nursing Care network for valuable discussions during the manuscript preparation and to Beatrice Kalisch for allowing us to translate the MISSCARE Survey into Norwegian. We would also like to thank Marlen Knutli and Petter Tindbod Eggen from the Research Department at Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust for their valuable comments and support.

ORCID iDs

Kjersti Grønning

Beate André

Ethics Considerations and Consent to Participate

All procedures for handling and storing participants’ personal data, including obtaining informed consent, were approved by the Data Access Committee (DAC) at Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust (DAC ref. 2022_2333) in accordance with Norwegian legislation and The Personal Data Act. Participants were provided with written information detailing the study's objectives and were informed that their participation was both voluntary and confidential. Consent was given by participants through their completion of the web-based questionnaire.

Author Contributions/CRediT

KG, MMO, and BA did conceptualization; KG, MMO, and BA did methodology; KG did formal analysis, data curation, and wrote the original draft preparation; KG, MMO, and BA wrote the review and editing. All authors approved the final version.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research did not receive dedicated funding. The authors carried out the study during their working hours at Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust and the Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Act on the Processing of Personal Data. (2022). Norwegian Legislation. (The Personal Data Act) - Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2018-06-15-38.

Andersson

Eklund

A. J.

Nilsson

Bååth

(2022). Prevalence, type, and reasons for missed nursing care in municipality health care in Sweden – A cross sectional study. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00874-6

Ball

J. E.

Bruyneel

Aiken

L. H.

Sermeus

Sloane

D. M.

Rafferty

A. M.

Lindqvist

Tishelman

Griffiths

(2018). Post-operative mortality, missed care and nurse staffing in nine countries: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 78, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.004

Ball

J. E.

Murrells

Rafferty

A. M.

Morrow

Griffiths

(2014). ‘Care left undone’ during nursing shifts: Associations with workload and perceived quality of care. Bmj Quality & Safety, 23(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001767

Bragadóttir

Kalisch

B. J.

Smáradóttir

S. B.

Jónsdóttir

H. H.

(2015). Translation and psychometric testing of the Icelandic version of the MISSCARE survey. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 29(3), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12150

Cao

Song

Chen

Wang

Yang

(2023). What is nursing professionalism? A concept analysis. BMC Nursing, 22(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01161-0

Chaboyer

Harbeck

Lee

B. O.

Grealish

(2021). Missed nursing care: An overview of reviews. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(2), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.12308

Cruchinho

López-Franco

M. D.

Capelas

M. L.

Almeida

Bennett

P. M.

Miranda da Silva

Teixeira

Nunes

Lucas

Gaspar

(2024). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: A practical guideline for novice researchers. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 17(null), 2701–2728. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714

Dabney

B. W.

Kalisch

B. J.

Clark

(2019). A revised MISSCARE survey: Results from pilot testing. Applied Nursing Research, 50, 151202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2019.151202

10.

Danielis

Fantini

Sbrugnera

Colaetta

Maestra

M. R.

Mesaglio

Palese

(2021). Missed nursing care in a long-term rehabilitation setting: Findings from a cross-sectional study. Contemporary Nurse, 57(6), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2022.2029515

11.

Yang

Wang

Zang

(2020). A cross-sectional observational study of missed nursing care in hospitals in China. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(7), 1578–1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13112

12.

Duffy

J. R.

Culp

Padrutt

(2018). Description and factors associated with missed nursing care in an acute care community hospital. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 48(7/8), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000630

13.

Dutra

Guirardello

E. B.

(2021). Nurse work environment and its impact on reasons for missed care, safety climate, and job satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(5), 2398–2406. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14764

14.

Fennelly

Grogan

Reed

Hardiker

N. R.

(2021). Use of standardized terminologies in clinical practice: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 149, 104431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104431

15.

Gathara

Serem

Murphy

G. A.

Obengo

Tallam

Jackson

Brownie

English

(2020). Missed nursing care in newborn units: A cross-sectional direct observational study. BMJ quality & Safety, 29(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009363

16.

Griffiths

Recio-Saucedo

Dall'Ora

Briggs

Maruotti

Meredith

Smith

G. B.

Ball

(2018). The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(7), 1474–1487. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13564

17.

Jones

T. L.

Hamilton

Murry

(2015). Unfinished nursing care, missed care, and implicitly rationed care: State of the science review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1121–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.02.012

18.

Kalánková

Žiaková

Kurucová

(2019). Approaches to understanding the phenomenon of missed/rationed/unfinished care-a literature review. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery, 10(1), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.15452/CEJNM.2019.10.0007

19.

Kalisch

B. J.

(2006). Missed nursing care: A qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 21(4), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001786-200610000-00006

20.

Kalisch

B. J.

Landstrom

G. L.

Hinshaw

A. S.

(2009). Missed nursing care: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05027.x

21.

Kalisch

B. J.

Lee

K. H.

(2012). Missed nursing care: Magnet versus non-magnet hospitals. Nursing Outlook, 60(5), e32–e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.006

22.

Kalisch

B. J.

Terzioglu

Duygulu

(2012a). The MISSCARE Survey-Turkish: Psychometric properties and findings. Nursing Economics, 30(1), 29.

23.

Kalisch

B. J.

Tschannen

Lee

K. H.

(2012b). Missed nursing care, staffing, and patient falls. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 27(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0b013e318225aa23

24.

Kalisch

B. J.

Williams

R. A.

(2009). Development and psychometric testing of a tool to measure missed nursing care. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0b013e3181a23cf5

25.

Kim

M. O.

Coiera

Magrabi

(2017). Problems with health information technology and their effects on care delivery and patient outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(2), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw154

26.

Lisby

Tei

Mainz

Gregersen

Andersen

K. V.

(2023). A Danish version of the MISSCARE survey: Translation and validation. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 37(1), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13143

27.

Liu

Zheng

Liu

Baggs

J. G.

Liu

You

(2018). Hospital nursing organizational factors, nursing care left undone, and nurse burnout as predictors of patient safety: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 86, 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.05.005

28.

Lorenzo-Seva

(2022). SOLOMON: A method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 54(6), 2665–2677. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01750-y

29.

The Norwegian Health Research Act. (2021). (assessed 3.9.2024). Norwegian Legislation. The Health Research Act | Forskningsetikk.

30.

Nymark

Göransson

K. E.

Saboonchi

Falk

A. C.

von Vogelsang

A. C.

(2020). Translation, culture adaption and psychometric testing of the MISSCARE survey—Swedish version. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(23-24), 4645–4652. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15505

31.

Øyri

S. F.

Bates

D. W.

Wiig

(2023). Comparison of external evaluation policies and regulations for quality improvement and safety of health services in Norway and the United States. International Journal of Health Governance, 28(4), 413–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-06-2023-0065

32.

Palese

Navone

Danielis

Vryonides

Sermeus

Papastavrou

(2021). Measurement tools used to assess unfinished nursing care: A systematic review of psychometric properties. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(2), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14603

33.

Papathanasiou

Tzenetidis

Tsaras

Zyga

Malliarou

(2024). Missed nursing care; Prioritizing the patient's needs: An umbrella review. Healthcare (Basel), 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020224

34.

Patterson

E. S.

Anders

Moffatt-Bruce

(2017). Clustering and prioritizing patient safety issues during EHR implementation and upgrades in hospital settings. Proceedings of The International Symposium of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare. International Symposium of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare, 6(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857917061028

35.

Peterson

Uibu

Kangasniemi

(2022). Care left undone and work organisation: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study in surgical wards of Estonian hospitals. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 36(1), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12987

36.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2012). Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer Health.

37.

Recio-Saucedo

Dall'Ora

Maruotti

Ball

Briggs

Meredith

Redfern

O. C.

Kovacs

Prytherch

Smith

G. B.

Griffiths

(2018). What impact does nursing care left undone have on patient outcomes? Review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(11-12), 2248–2259. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14058

38.

Saqer

T. J.

AbuAlRub

R. F.

(2018). Missed nursing care and its relationship with confidence in delegation among hospital nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(13-14), 2887–2895. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14380

39.

Siqueira

L. D. C.

Caliri

M. H. L.

Kalisch

Dantas

R. A. S.

(2013). Cultural adaptation and internal consistency analysis of the MISSCARE survey for use in Brazil. Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem, 21(2), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-11692013000200019

40.

Sousa

V. D.

Rojjanasrirat

(2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x

41.

WHO. (2021). Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care (9240032703) (assessed 3.9.2024) Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030 (who.int).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB

Translating,Adapting and Validating the Revised MISSCARE Survey for Use in Norwegian Hospitals—A Pilot Study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Review of the Literature

Methods

The Revised MISSCARE Survey

The Translation Process

The Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Norwegian Version of the Revised MISSCARE Survey

Participants

Statistical Analysis

Ethical Considerations

Results

Demographics

Acceptability

Construct Validity

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Implications for Practice

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-son-10.1177_23779608251332742 - Supplemental material for Translating, Adapting and Validating the Revised MISSCARE Survey for Use in Norwegian Hospitals—A Pilot Study

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethics Considerations and Consent to Participate

Author Contributions/CRediT

Funding

Conflicting Interests

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material