Evidence mapPaperPMID 41348359Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Virtual Nursing for the Care of Hospitalized Patients.

K Jane Muir, Alexandra Maye, Matthew D McHugh, Linda H Aiken, Vicky Vo, Karen B Lasater

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

K Jane MuirCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Alexandra MayeCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Matthew D McHughCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Linda H AikenCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Vicky VoCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Karen B LasaterCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

ADVANCED TRAINING IN NURSING OUTCOMES RESEARCHT32NR007104 · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · 1999 to 2025
$2.6M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS028978NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: It is unknown if virtual nursing (VN) enhances care quality or improves the workload of bedside nurses in hospitals. Objective: To describe what services VNs provide to patients and nurses in hospitals; to evaluate whether the presence of VNs improves nurse workload and patient care quality; and to examine bedside nurses' experiences with VNs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study using mixed methods included results from the 2024 Nurses4All survey conducted between December 2023 and March 2024. Eligible respondents were hospital-employed registered nurses in 10 states. Exposure: Experience providing VN-assisted bedside care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Bedside nurses reported the services provided by VNs and answered questions about VNs' impact on workload and quality of care. Nurses also answered the open-text response, "Please share any positive or negative experiences you have had working with virtual nurses." Results: The registered nurse sample included 880 respondents with a mean (SD) age of 44.2 (12.3) years and 13.3 (11.3) years of experience (92 Asian [10.5%], 87 Black [9.9%], 514 White [58.4%]; 84 [9.5%] with Hispanic ethnicity). The top uses of VNs reported by nurses were patient observation (434 nurses [53%]), admission and discharge activities (381 nurses [45%]), and patient education (306 nurses [37%]). The majority of nurses (483 nurses [57%]) reported that VNs did not reduce their workload, and among these, 81 nurses (10%) said VNs increased their workload. Of the 366 nurses (43%) who said VNs reduced their workloads, only 70 (8%) reported that workloads were reduced "by a lot." Slightly over half of nurses (452 [53%]) said VNs improved quality of care, but only 96 (11%) reported that quality was improved "by a lot." VNs had no impact on care quality according to 391 nurses (47%), with 34 (4%) stating that VNs reduced care quality. Nurses described the strengths of VNs for monitoring and documentation, and limitations related to staffing, patient distrust, and workflow inefficiencies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, there were mixed findings on VNs, suggesting such models should be introduced cautiously.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkload

Identifiers

PMID41348359
PMCPMC12681041

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.