Older nurses’ experiences of providing direct care in hospital nursing units: a qualitative systematic review (original) (raw)

2018, JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports

Phenomena of interest The phenomenon of interest is the experience of older nurses in providing direct nursing care. This review excluded studies consisting entirely of enrolled nurses, licensed practical nurses, and licensed vocational nurses. Context The provision of direct nursing care on any type of in-patient hospital nursing unit (i.e., including but not limited to medical/surgical units, intensive care units, critical care units, perioperative units, palliative care units, obstetrical units, emergency departments, and rehabilitative care units. Types of studies Qualitative data including, but not limited to the following methodologies: phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research. Search strategy A three-step search strategy was used. An initial limited search of the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), and CINAHL, was undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms within these databases was then undertaken across all included databases (CINAHL, Pub Med, PsycINFO, Embase, AgeLine, Sociological Abstracts and SocINDEX). The search for unpublished articles included Dissertation Abstracts International, MEDNAR, OpenGrey, OAlster, Google Scholar, and Google. Thirdly, the reference lists of included papers were then searched for any The ConQual approach 1 was used to assess and report confidence in the results of this qualitative systematic review. The 12 studies included in this review were assessed for dependability. For synthesized finding 1, of the nine studies included, two addressed five of the dependability questions, two addressed four, four addressed three, and one addressed two. For synthesized finding 2, of the seven articles included, two addressed five of the dependability questions, one addressed four, and four addressed three. For synthesized finding 3, of the seven articles included, two addressed five of the questions, four addressed three, and one addressed two. Credibility of the findings was graded at three levels: those that could not be challenged were graded unequivocal (U), those that could be challenged were graded credible (C), and those that could not be supported by data were graded unsupported (Unsupported) (Appendix I). The level of credibility of each finding was based on consensus between the two reviewers.