4.5 Review

Quality indicators in telephone nursing - An integrative review

Journal

NURSING OPEN
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 1301-1313

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.747

Keywords

integrative review; nursing; telephone triage; quality; quality of care; telenursing; telephone nursing

Categories

Funding

  1. Inera AB

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to identify key factors indicating quality in telephone nursing through an integrative literature review. Ten factors were revealed, including availability and simplicity of the service, sustainable working conditions, specialist education and experience, healthcare resources and organization, good communication, person-centredness, competence, correct and safe care, efficiency and satisfaction. It was concluded that telephone nursing services need to focus on these factors to ensure high-quality care.
Aim: The aim of this study was to identify factors that indicate quality in telephone nursing. Design: An integrative literature review. Method: A literature search was performed in October 2018, in the PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Academic Search, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A total of 30 included were included and data that corresponded to the study's aim were extracted and categorized along the three areas of quality as described by Donabedian (Milbank Quarterly, 83, 691), namely structure, process and outcome. Results: The analysis revealed ten factors indicating quality in telephone nursing (TN): availability and simplicity of the service, sustainable working conditions, specialist education and TN experience, healthcare resources and organization, good communication, person-centredness, competence, correct and safe care, efficiency and satisfaction. TN services need to target all ten factors to ensure that the care given is of high quality and able to meet today's requirements for the service.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available