Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality. Design Descriptive methodological quality review. Data source We searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal. Eligibility criteria We included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors. Results Seventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author’s country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score. Conclusions The 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Aim: To explore the perceptions of nursing students on the phenomenon of anticipated nursing care.Design: A descriptive‐qualitative study was performed in 2019 according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research principles.Methods: Data were collected using 16 face‐to‐face, audio‐recorded interviews across four Italian Bachelor of Nursing degrees. Then, content analysis was performed, identifying, analysing and describing the anticipated nursing care phenomenon as perceived by nursing students.Results: Administering medications, providing fundamentals of care, managing some clinical procedures, freeing up the patient's bed and starting the shifts early emerged as the most anticipated nursing interventions. Stable, older patients who were more functionally dependent were reported to receive some fundamental nursing care before the expected time, while older, stable and more independent patients were used to receiving medications in advance. Anticipated nursing care is triggered by factors at the time management, resource, programming, professional and organizational levels.

Objectives: This study aims to explore the experiences of bereaved family members during and after the loss of a relative in an intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic-related visitation restrictions, as well as to assess their perceptions of a nurse-led bereavement support programme. Methods: Ten participants with a relative who had died in an ICU were recruited in September 2020 during a follow-up bereavement meeting at a tertiary cardiac centre in Switzerland. Descriptive qualitative research was conducted. Face-to-face nurse-led follow-up bereavement meetings, adapted to the pandemic circumstances and conducted as semi-structured interviews, were analysed by a thematic analysis. Findings: Fifteen sub-themes and three main categories were identified. The motivation behind the family members’ participation in the meetings was to ask and learn about their experiences regarding the death of their relative during this abnormal time. The reactions to the meetings varied among the families. Many expressed that the experience of bereavement was particularly challenging and painful, and that the absence of a final farewell to their loved one, as well as the impossibility of having a formally held funeral, made the deaths harder to accept. The families appreciated the interview as it gave them clarification, information, and an awareness of the facts and the care provided, and for several of them it was also a chance to share their emotions and express any difficulties they might have encountered both during and after the patient’s death. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic’s restrictions had a profound impact on families who lost a loved one in an ICU. The nurse-led bereavement support service responded to the needs of grieving families, providing valuable emotional and practical support and re-establishing a healthy relationship between the families and the caregivers that was hindered by pandemic restrictions. The study also shows that a nurse-led bereavement support service can be a valuable component of family-centred care.

Aim: To explore the experiences of nurses transitioning from a clinical ward to a newly established respiratory intermediate care unit (IMCU). Design: A qualitative descriptive approach was adopted to capture the lived experiences of redeployed nurses. This design was selected to address the research question: What are the initial experiences of nurses transitioning from general ward settings to a newly established IMCU for respiratory patients? Methods: Two focus groups were conducted in June 2024, involving 14 purposefully selected registered nurses. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis framework, with the study reported in line with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Results: The analysis revealed two interconnected themes reflecting the complexity of the redeployment experience. The first theme, ‘The introspection of waiting amidst change and readiness’, captures the emotional ambivalence nurses felt, characterised by anticipation, uncertainty and a perceived lack of preparedness. This phase was marked by concerns over clinical competence, fear of errors and the weight of new legal and ethical responsibilities. The second theme, ‘The road to organizational change with both driving forces and obstacles’, highlights nurses' concerns about physician readiness, feeling undervalued and limited involvement in planning. At the same time, nurses emphasised the importance of teamwork, structured preparation, experiential training and having the right equipment. Conclusion: The study underscores the complexity of role transitions for nurses moving into semi‐critical care settings like IMCUs. It reveals the need for targeted support strategies to reduce uncertainty and enhance role readiness. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: To improve the redeployment experience and patient outcomes, healthcare organisations should prioritise structured training, tailored preceptorship programmes and inclusive decision‐making processes. These measures can strengthen nurses' resilience, support workforce sustainability and ensure the delivery of high‐quality, patient‐centred care in intermediate care environments. Impact: This study highlights the significant impact of inadequate preparation and communication on redeployed nurses' experiences in respiratory IMCUs, emphasising the need for structured training and supportive team dynamics. These findings can guide healthcare leaders, nurse managers and policymakers in developing evidence‐based redeployment strategies that reduce anxiety, strengthen team cohesion and ultimately improve nurse adaptation and patient care in semi‐critical settings. Reporting Method: We used the SRQR guidelines for reporting qualitative studies. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Background: The evidence suggests that the midwifery care model is associated with better outcomes in the labour and birth process, although the debate is already heated. Aim: To verify the variation in the duration of the labour process among low-risk pregnant women cared for within different assistance midwifery models and to measure any variation in maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A single-centre cross-sectional observational study was conducted in a second-level hospital (hub) in accordance with the STROBE guidelines (Strengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology), including 272 pregnant women. Findings: The standard care with ‘regional analgesia’ and ‘one-to-one with regional analgesia’ models are linked to longer labour durations, identifying analgesia as a variable that affects both assistance types. The ‘one-to-one’ model and the ‘one-to-one’ model with water were correlated with a reduction in gynaecologist consultations due to unexpected worsening in the clinical labour conditions compared to the ‘standard’ model, while being multiparous, age group and birth weight were not related to an increased risk. Discussion: When midwifery care during labour was prolonged, as in the ‘one-to-one’ model, some outcomes, such as lacerations, episiotomies, postpartum haemorrhage and gynaecologist consultation, improved. These outcomes can be considered midwifery-sensitive outcomes . Conclusion: The ‘midwifery care-led’ model promotes the personalisation of assistance, allowing the woman to have the birth experience she prefers, guaranteeing safety.