Alvisa Palese
The concept of Missed Nursing Care (MNC) is approaching its twentieth anniversary—a milestone that marks not only its longevity but also the academic maturation of the field, shaped by two decades of global research. Since the initial introduction of the idea of Tasks Left Undone (Sochalski 2004), scholars have expanded and refined the construct, defining MNC as necessary or expected nursing care that is either not delivered or delivered late (Kalisch 2006). In parallel, the concept of Implicit Rationing of Nursing Care emerged, highlighting the decision-making processes that lead to the withholding or partial delivery of essential nursing activities when resources, skill mix, or time are insufficient (Schubert et al. 2007). To unify the multiple terminologies that have developed over the years, the overarching term Unfinished Nursing Care was later proposed (Jones et al. 2015). This umbrella concept encompasses all instances where required or planned nursing activities remain wholly or partially incomplete—not only due to time constraints but also because of factors such as the perceived value of nursing work, established habits, prioritisation skills, and the cultural or structural dimensions that shape clinical practice. This conceptual expansion underscores the multidimensional and multilevel nature of the phenomenon, triggered by factors at the macro-, meso-, exo- and micro- levels (Jones et al. 2015). From its inception, MNC research has faced complex theoretical and empirical challenges—particularly in defining what constitutes “missed” care and in measuring what is, by nature, an “invisible” phenomenon (Gustafsson et al. 2020). Recent global evidence highlights the persistence and significance of MNC. A comprehensive systematic review of studies from 2011 to 2024 reported raw prevalence rates ranging from 6.8% to 98.1% (median 56.4%, interquartile range 41.0–75.4) (Gong et al. 2025). Missed or delayed care is especially common in meeting fundamental patient needs and is consistently associated with adverse events, workforce distress, and increased organisational costs. As this body of investigations enters a phase of academic maturity, marked by exponential publication growth, validated measurement instruments, systematic reviews, and bibliometric analyses (Sarpong et al. 2023), the field stands at a pivotal juncture. The next frontier requires conceptual refinement, methodological innovation, and the translation of accumulated knowledge into practice. Based on preliminary data from a recently conducted umbrella rapid review summarising the latest evidence in the field (available from the author) and personal research experience, this commentary aims to provoke dialogue and encourage reappraisal. It urges the field to address conceptual ambiguities and methodological boundaries in shaping the next generation of Missed Nursing Care research. Early conceptualisations of MNC and the models derived from them were largely theoretical, rooted in initial explorations of nursing work and care delivery. However, after two decades of sustained empirical inquiry and significant evolution in nursing roles, health care systems, and workforce realities, the reference definitions of MNC remain largely unchanged. The concept has stayed anchored within clinical nursing practice, with limited translation into areas such as nursing education, management, or interprofessional research. At this stage of conceptual maturity, the question is no longer whether MNC occurs, but how we understand and frame it. Reconceptualization is urgently needed, to synthesise extensive empirical evidence, address new system complexities, and position MNC as a dynamic construct at the intersection of individual, organisational, and policy processes. This reframing must integrate the full range of empirically identified antecedents and consequences, refine its defining attributes, and provide scholars with a contemporary, theory-driven framework that supports preventive intervention design, meaningful comparison, and translation into practice. Such renewal requires a deliberate broadening of focus. While antecedents such as staffing, burnout, and job satisfaction have been extensively studied, persistent blind spots remain—including intra-team collaboration, ethical climate, leadership influence, digital transformation, and regulatory contexts. These dimensions reflect deeper shifts in the moral, technological, and structural architecture of today's health systems and must be theoretically embedded in an updated understanding of MNC. Explicitly mapping the interplay between micro-level factors (e.g., workload, teamwork, nurse–patient relationships), meso-level conditions (e.g., culture, leadership, organisational climate), and macro-level systems (e.g., funding, regulation, societal values) will move the field from descriptive associations toward explanatory and predictive theory. Beyond definitional renewal, the field must address conceptual fragmentation. Clarifying MNC's boundaries and overlaps with related constructs—such as fundamentals of care and care poverty—is essential to halt terminological proliferation and reconnect scattered strands of evidence. Equally important, incorporating cross-professional perspectives—such as physicians' framing of “care left undone” as triage or adaptive prioritisation—would situate MNC within the broader interprofessional discourse on rationing, safety, and ethical decision-making. Reconceptualizing MNC is not merely an academic exercise in semantics but an act of theoretical leadership. It is a necessary step to ensure that one of nursing's most influential constructs continues to illuminate the realities of care delivery in increasingly complex health systems. Despite decades of empirical progress, most research on MNC still relies on cross-sectional designs that are fundamentally unsuited to capturing the multifactorial, dynamic, and system-embedded nature of the phenomenon. Understanding MNC as an issue shaped by interacting individual, team, and organisational mechanisms requires methodological innovation that reflects its evolving complexity. The accumulated evidence from MNC studies and related fields such as organisational and implementation science now provides a solid foundation for a decisive methodological shift in research approaches. Theory-driven strategies can use conceptual and logic models to trace hypothesized pathways linking contextual conditions and mechanisms to observable MNC patterns and outcomes. Longitudinal cohort designs can follow patients, nurses, and units over time to show how changes in staffing, leadership, policy, or technology reshape profiles of missed care. Experimental and quasi-experimental approaches are needed to rigorously test targeted interventions such as innovative staffing models, team-based training programs, or digital decision-support tools against specific MNC dimensions. Ethnographic and realist methodologies, in turn, can illuminate the “backstage” of clinical prioritisation by making visible the tacit norms, routines, and coping mechanisms that influence what is left undone. Equally important is building collaborative and data-rich research infrastructures. Secondary analyses of large administrative datasets, opportunistic cohorts based on shared measurement instruments, and coordinated multicentre or multinational studies can overcome the limitations of isolated single-site surveys. These strategies strengthen generalizability and reveal how context–mechanism–outcome configurations vary across cultural, regulatory, and practice settings, which often remain hidden in stand-alone cross-sectional work. Together, these methodological advances can move the field beyond descriptive correlations toward a more precise understanding of the underlying mechanisms, antecedents, and consequences. The time has come for the MNC research community to step decisively outside its methodological comfort zone and embrace approaches that fully engage with the complexity of care omission, providing strong evidence that can be translated into actionable knowledge for practice, workforce policy, and system-level accountability. Despite two decades of research producing first-, second- and third-generation instruments for assessing MNC, measurement approaches remain notably underdeveloped and conceptually fragile. A fundamental challenge persists: what do nurses capture when ranking “missed care” on survey items? Current tools diverge sharply: some target the frequency of missed care, others the perceived importance, or reasons for non-delivery, often conflating core professional nursing activities with routine tasks typically handled by nursing assistants. This methodological heterogeneity obscures whether assessments reflect accurate frontline clinical judgement or broader system-level dynamics. Compounding these issues, many instruments are anchored in an outdated, task-centric paradigm of nursing that fails to represent contemporary nursing roles. The field cannot afford to tolerate such limitations when MNC signals profound threats to patient safety, workforce sustainability, and system efficiency. Urgent action is needed to develop next-generation tools grounded in explicit theoretical models, created through rigorous item-generation processes that engage patients, frontline clinicians, managers, and measurement experts. Future instruments must also balance generic applicability with context-specific adaptations while prioritising comprehensive psychometric rigour: cross-cultural validity, measurement error quantification, criterion validity, responsiveness to change, sensitivity, and specificity. Validation across diverse countries, care settings, and populations is essential, as is the refinement of scoring algorithms and the establishment of clinically meaningful thresholds. Only then can these metrics support robust benchmarking, drive targeted quality improvement, and inform evidence-based policy. This is not merely a technical refinement; fragile metrics do not commensurate with the seriousness of a problem such as MNC, which reflects a widespread crisis in nursing care delivery. The research community must address this measurement crisis directly, investing decisively in tools that are proportionate to the significance of the phenomenon they aim to quantify and capable of informing decisions that protect both patients and clinical nurses. Another core limitation of current measurement instruments persists. Available tools reduce nursing to static lists of “basic” tasks that no longer reflect the profession's expanded scope. As nursing has evolved to include advanced practice, care coordination, digital integration, and interprofessional leadership, these reductionist tools risk distorting the philosophical foundation of holistic, patient-centred care. The evolution of MNC research now demands a visionary leap in measurement: future development should shift tools from rigid checklists that obscure nursing's profound complexity to dynamic frameworks that illuminate its holistic essence and systemic interplay; or from discrete task inventories to representations of critical nursing processes, such as surveillance, communication, coordination, shared decision-making, and relational care. These changes pose several conceptual challenges. For example, items in available tools such as “providing emotional support” risk oversimplifying nursing care by bundling multifaceted actions (presence, active listening, explanation, advocacy) into single metrics; their frequent “missed” rankings may signal measurement imprecision as much as care deficits. True advancement requires dissecting these composites to reveal granular dynamics while elevating items into nursing's intellectual and relational core functions. By moving beyond checklists, MNC measurement can finally honour nursing's complexity, empowering researchers and leaders to create care systems where no essential process is silently sidelined. Current reliance on nurses' self-reported perceptions, while foundational, remains vulnerable to biases from expectations, accountability pressures, and recall limitations. After two decades, this research field now has the maturity and technological infrastructure to pioneer a transformation in measurement, from subjective snapshots to objective, triangulated systems that not only quantify care gaps but also catalyse real-time actions. The rapid expansion of electronic health records (EHRs) and standardised nursing terminologies now enables precise, continuous tracking of discrepancies between planned and delivered care as missed indicators, unlocking automated audits of workflow trails, and intervention timeliness. This digital foundation may support triangulation of nurse reports with patient and caregiver perspectives (e.g., complaints), structured chart reviews, objective staffing and workload metrics, and clinical outcome indicators. Analysing the degree of data convergence may reveal transformative insights: care elements that nurses perceive as frequently missed but go unnoticed by patients, or patient-reported deficiencies absent from nursing records—exposing hidden fault lines in care delivery. Embedding MNC indicators into routine data infrastructures through automated extraction and real-time dashboards would revolutionize monitoring at unit and organisational levels, delivering immediate feedback loops for frontline action. This evolution from episodic surveys to continuous surveillance systems promises to embed MNC awareness into safety culture, trigger proactive interventions, accelerate quality improvement, and foster accountability across health systems. Measurement systems that transcend individual perception to illuminate organisational dynamics may also empower nursing leadership to preempt care omissions before they escalate into harm. By embracing objective triangulated approaches, MNC research may deliver not just data, but the architectural intelligence needed to redesign care delivery for the complexities of tomorrow's health systems. After two decades of MNC research dominated by nurses' and aides' perspectives, the field stands at a turning point: reclaiming patient subjectivity as the essential core, and positioning patients and families as primary witnesses to illuminate lived realities beyond average nurses' reports. To date, measurement has privileged healthcare workers' aggregated perceptions, blending patients who received complete care with those who experienced gaps while sidelining each individual's unique experience. This patient-centred subjectivity must be urgently reclaimed, not only to capture the frequency of omissions but also to address unmet expectations, relational disruptions, and perceived impacts on outcomes. The maturity of two decades now demands measurement systems that systematically integrate patient- and family-reported measures, re-centring MNC on their lived experience with care. Patients, who interact with multiple nurses and shifts, possess a unique advantage in detecting cumulative omissions and inconsistencies, highlighting which fundamentals of care hold the deepest value or inflict the greatest harm when absent, and exposing subtle sequelae such as eroded trust, fear, or dehumanisation. Giving voice to patients requires specialised strategies for vulnerable populations—older adults with cognitive impairment, children, or those with communication barriers—using proxies, adapted tools, and qualitative methods to ensure inclusivity. Beyond data collection, engaging patients, families, and caregivers as true partners in co-designing measures, interpreting findings, and shaping interventions ensures that MNC reduction aligns precisely with their priorities, not professional proxies. This reclamation transforms MNC from a provider-centric metric to an emancipatory lens: elevating patients, families and communities as co-investigators who restore nursing's moral heart. By centring their witness, the field can create care systems where no lived gap goes unseen, driving human-centred innovation that honours the profound subjectivity at the core of healing. Over time, research on MNC has shifted from broad hospital-wide analyses to more specific settings and populations. However, important care environments remain underexamined, including paediatrics, home care, nursing homes and aged care facilities, other residential settings, and subacute and critical care areas, where omissions may take distinct forms and have unique consequences. At the regional level, low- and middle-income countries are still markedly underrepresented in available studies, leaving significant gaps in understanding how structural constraints shape patterns of missed care. Extending inquiry into these settings and populations is not simply a matter of filling gaps; it is an ethical necessity. Long-term care facilities, community services, and home care often support highly dependent, chronically ill, or socially marginalised populations, for whom missed fundamentals—such as hygiene, nutrition, mobility support, emotional presence, and communication—can trigger cascading harm. At the same time, health systems in low- and middle-income countries, often operating under chronic resource scarcity and workforce shortages, may normalise certain omissions, rendering them invisible to conventional measurement tools and masking systemic inequities. A renewed agenda should prioritise multi-country and multi-site studies that explicitly compare MNC patterns across diverse policy regimes, financing models, cultural expectations, and workforce configurations. Such comparative designs can help distinguish universal dimensions of MNC from those that are informing more precise interventions and policy nursing and nurses in these investigations can also illuminate how professional whether missed care is or how the hidden of practice, as a to or the of MNC across decades of inquiry have established MNC as a phenomenon across global health systems. the field an ethical persistent prevalence measurement with limited to interventions turning into The by prevalence studies must to decisive prioritising the design, and of multilevel interventions by accumulated evidence and new perspectives and from other at the micro-level include the of for and communication At the such as leadership staffing and safety for their to MNC. including electronic real-time workload indicators, and decision-support systems, represent the influence of macro-level such as and nursing care resources, may also be the of interventions at levels may also inform their influence and to MNC. intervention research may help protect patients, families, nurses, and health care from MNC, and may also mechanisms and contextual specific strategies certain MNC dimensions but not how they to and and what This shift MNC from science to an for practice At its core, MNC reflects nurses' prioritisation systematic inquiry into certain activities or processes are while others balance against emotional immediate against preventive and individual patient against unit workload, often explicit education, experience, and tacit or organisational shape these understanding of the factors prioritisation requires linking MNC antecedents such as organisational, and cultural with individual nurse including and moral these factors and their dynamics can help prioritisation mechanisms into patient-centred frameworks through practice, strategies and ethical decision-making in practice. As research on MNC maturity after two decades, renewed and innovation are essential to the This initial critical a evolution that may the of a phase MNC was a of is a to develop of MNC to provide researchers with advanced and frameworks that inform in methodological approaches and the shift from research to deeper of decision-making dynamics reflects a broader from subjective of which tasks or have been missed to cognitive and research Future MNC research should also aim to investigations with the demands and of contemporary healthcare systems, including digital the of nursing roles, and and of a more that the of patients and families while methodological and MNC research is an with several to and meaningful in the and researchers can to this through methodological innovation, conceptual refinement, an to actionable to inform both real-time actions and strategies and to the of MNC. data review and was to The has to The no of is not to this as no new data were created or in this