Journal of Biomedical Sciences

  • ISSN: 2254-609X
  • Journal h-index: 15
  • Journal CiteScore: 5.60
  • Journal Impact Factor: 4.85
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
Share This Page


Development and implementation of the feasibility of Nurse-sensitive outcome indicators set for assessing the variation in the quality of care in ambulatory chemotherapy units in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dena M. Attallah

Background: The quality of patient care is a universal concern among healthcare managers, policymakers and consumers. In order to benchmark and improve patient outcomes and demonstrate the impact of high-quality care provided by ambulatory chemotherapy services (ACSs), it is important to develop patient-reported nurse-sensitive indicators, specific to chemotherapy-related symptoms and experiences of supportive care. This study builds on previous work by Armes et al. (2014) who developed the Patient-Reported Chemotherapy Indicators of Symptoms and Experience (PR-CISE).

Aims: This study aims to explore a range of methodological and feasibility issues that relate to the development and implementation of Nurse-Sensitive Outcome indicators (NSOIs) and associated tools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). It also aims to establish whether variability exists in Nurse-sensitive Outcomes (NSOs) amongst ambulatory chemotherapy units in the KSA.

Methods: A feasibility study employed a descriptive, crosssectional survey with two preparation stages. In Stage I, instrument items were developed. In Stage II, the feasibility of delivering the protocol was evaluated and the questionnaire piloted.

Results: The pilot testing of the recruitment, research tools, and data collection process was useful in providing the groundwork. The cross-sectional survey confirmed that survey processes were efficient. Significant differences were observed in the distribution of the severity of symptoms between ACSs in six out of seven studied symptoms.