Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate missed care measurement approaches and their application in long-term aged care (LTAC) settings.
METHODS: Systematic review using Tawfik\'s guideline.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest were searched. Supplemental searching was from reference lists of retrieved records, first authors\' ORCID homepages and Google advanced search for grey literature. Search limitations were English language, published between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2022.
METHODS: COVIDENCE was utilized for screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools and COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used for quality appraisal. Data were summarized and synthesized using narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications across 11 regions were included, with two principal methods of missed care measurement: modified standard scales and tailored specific approaches. They were applied inconsistently and generated diverse measurement outcomes. There were challenges even with the most commonly used tool, the BERNCA-NH, including absence of high-quality verification through comparative analysis against an established \'gold standard\', reliance on self-administration, incomplete assessment of constructs and inadequate exploration of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Globally, there are deficiencies in the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the instruments measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Further research on theoretical and practical perspectives is required.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted a critical need to establish a standardized, validated approach to measure missed care in LTAC settings. This review calls for collaborative efforts by researchers, clinical staff and policymakers to develop and implement evidence-based practices as a way of safeguarding the well-being of older clients living in LTAC settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of missed care in LTAC settings rely on adapting acute care tools. There is a critical gap in measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Developing a new tool could improve care quality and safety in LTAC settings globally.
UNASSIGNED: Adhered to PRISMA guideline.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.
METHODS: Systematic review using Tawfik\'s guideline.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest were searched. Supplemental searching was from reference lists of retrieved records, first authors\' ORCID homepages and Google advanced search for grey literature. Search limitations were English language, published between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2022.
METHODS: COVIDENCE was utilized for screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools and COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used for quality appraisal. Data were summarized and synthesized using narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications across 11 regions were included, with two principal methods of missed care measurement: modified standard scales and tailored specific approaches. They were applied inconsistently and generated diverse measurement outcomes. There were challenges even with the most commonly used tool, the BERNCA-NH, including absence of high-quality verification through comparative analysis against an established \'gold standard\', reliance on self-administration, incomplete assessment of constructs and inadequate exploration of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Globally, there are deficiencies in the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the instruments measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Further research on theoretical and practical perspectives is required.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted a critical need to establish a standardized, validated approach to measure missed care in LTAC settings. This review calls for collaborative efforts by researchers, clinical staff and policymakers to develop and implement evidence-based practices as a way of safeguarding the well-being of older clients living in LTAC settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of missed care in LTAC settings rely on adapting acute care tools. There is a critical gap in measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Developing a new tool could improve care quality and safety in LTAC settings globally.
UNASSIGNED: Adhered to PRISMA guideline.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.
摘要：
目的：严格评估漏诊护理测量方法及其在长期老年护理（LTAC）设置中的应用。
方法：使用Tawfik指南进行系统审查。
方法：PubMed，Scopus,WebofScience,搜索了CINAHL和ProQuest。补充搜索来自检索到的记录的参考列表，第一作者“ORCID主页和谷歌对灰色文献的高级搜索”。搜索限制是英语，在2001年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间发布。
方法：使用COVIDENCE进行筛查，数据提取和质量评价。JBI关键评估工具和COSMIN偏差风险工具用于质量评估。使用叙事分析对数据进行汇总和综合。
结果：纳入了11个地区的24种出版物，有两种主要的漏诊护理测量方法：修改的标准量表和量身定制的具体方法。它们的应用不一致，产生了不同的测量结果。即使使用最常用的工具也存在挑战，伯恩卡-NH，包括缺乏通过与既定的“黄金标准”进行比较分析的高质量验证，依靠自我管理，对结构的不完整评估和对心理测量学属性的不充分探索。
结论：全球，在LTAC设置中,测量漏诊护理的仪器在有效性和全面性方面存在不足.需要对理论和实践观点进行进一步研究。
结论：调查结果强调了建立标准化，在LTAC设置中测量漏诊护理的有效方法。这篇评论呼吁研究人员共同努力，临床工作人员和政策制定者制定和实施循证实践，作为保障生活在LTAC环境中的老年客户福祉的一种方式。
结论：在LTAC设置中对错过护理的测量依赖于适应急性护理工具。在测量LTAC设置中的错过护理方面存在关键差距。开发新工具可以提高全球LTAC环境中的护理质量和安全性。
■遵守PRISMA准则。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
方法：使用Tawfik指南进行系统审查。
方法：PubMed，Scopus,WebofScience,搜索了CINAHL和ProQuest。补充搜索来自检索到的记录的参考列表，第一作者“ORCID主页和谷歌对灰色文献的高级搜索”。搜索限制是英语，在2001年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间发布。
方法：使用COVIDENCE进行筛查，数据提取和质量评价。JBI关键评估工具和COSMIN偏差风险工具用于质量评估。使用叙事分析对数据进行汇总和综合。
结果：纳入了11个地区的24种出版物，有两种主要的漏诊护理测量方法：修改的标准量表和量身定制的具体方法。它们的应用不一致，产生了不同的测量结果。即使使用最常用的工具也存在挑战，伯恩卡-NH，包括缺乏通过与既定的“黄金标准”进行比较分析的高质量验证，依靠自我管理，对结构的不完整评估和对心理测量学属性的不充分探索。
结论：全球，在LTAC设置中,测量漏诊护理的仪器在有效性和全面性方面存在不足.需要对理论和实践观点进行进一步研究。
结论：调查结果强调了建立标准化，在LTAC设置中测量漏诊护理的有效方法。这篇评论呼吁研究人员共同努力，临床工作人员和政策制定者制定和实施循证实践，作为保障生活在LTAC环境中的老年客户福祉的一种方式。
结论：在LTAC设置中对错过护理的测量依赖于适应急性护理工具。在测量LTAC设置中的错过护理方面存在关键差距。开发新工具可以提高全球LTAC环境中的护理质量和安全性。
■遵守PRISMA准则。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
