Efficacy of Using Available Data to Examine Nurse Staffing Ratios and Quality of Care Metrics

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron Carlisle ◽  
Anjali Perera ◽  
Sonja E. Stutzman ◽  
Shelley Brown-Cleere ◽  
Aatika Parwaiz ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlene Harrington ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
Joseph Mullan ◽  
Helen Carrillo ◽  
David U. Himmelstein

Quality problems have long plagued the nursing home industry. While two-thirds of U.S. nursing homes are investor-owned, few studies have examined the impact of investor-ownership on the quality of care. The authors analyzed 1998 data from inspections of 13,693 nursing facilities representing virtually all U.S. nursing homes. They grouped deficiency citations issued by inspectors into three categories (“quality of care,” “quality of life,” and “other”) and compared deficiency rates in investor-owned, nonprofit, and public nursing homes. A multivariate model was used to control for case mix, percentage of residents covered by Medicaid, whether the facility was hospital-based, whether it was a skilled nursing facility for Medicare only, chain ownership, and location by state. The study also assessed nurse staffing. The authors found that investor-owned nursing homes provide worse care and less nursing care than nonprofit or public homes. Investor-owned facilities averaged 5.89 deficiencies per home, 46.5 percent higher than nonprofit and 43.0 percent higher than public facilities, and also had more of each category of deficiency. In the multivariate analysis, investor-ownership predicted 0.679 additional deficiencies per home; chain-ownership predicted an additional 0.633 deficiencies per home. Nurse staffing ratios were markedly lower at investor-owned homes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (5) ◽  
pp. 1684-1716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin B. Hackmann

This paper develops a model of the nursing home industry to investigate the quality effects of policies that either raise regulated reimbursement rates or increase local competition. Using data from Pennsylvania, I estimate the parameters of the model. The findings indicate that nursing homes increase the quality of care, measured by the number of skilled nurses per resident, by 8.7 percent following a universal 10 percent increase in Medicaid reimbursement rates. In contrast, I find that pro-competitive policies lead to only small increases in skilled nurse staffing ratios, suggesting that Medicaid increases are more cost effective in raising the quality of care. (JEL I11, I13, I18, I38, J14, L13)


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Olley ◽  
Ian Edwards ◽  
Mark Avery ◽  
Helen Cooper

Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and summarise available research on nurse staffing methods and relate these to outcomes under three overarching themes of: (1) management of clinical risk, quality and safety; (2) development of a new or innovative staffing methodology; and (3) equity of nursing workload. Methods The PRISMA method was used. Relevant articles were located by searching via the Griffith University Library electronic catalogue, including articles on PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Medline. Only English language publications published between 1 January 2010 and 30 April 2016 focusing on methodologies in acute hospital in-patient units were included in the present review. Results Two of the four staffing methods were found to have evidenced-based articles from empirical studies within the parameters set for inclusion. Of the four staffing methodologies searched, supply and demand returned 10 studies and staffing ratios returned 11. Conclusions There is a need to develop an evidence-based nurse-sensitive outcomes measure upon which staffing for safety, quality and workplace equity, as well as an instrument that reliability and validly projects nurse staffing requirements in a variety of clinical settings. Nurse-sensitive indicators reflect elements of patient care that are directly affected by nursing practice In addition, these measures must take into account patient satisfaction, workload and staffing, clinical risks and other measures of the quality and safety of care and nurses’ work satisfaction. i. What is known about the topic? Nurse staffing is a controversial topic that has significant patient safety, quality of care, human resources and financial implications. In acute care services, nursing accounts for approximately 70% of salaries and wages paid by health services budgets, and evidence as to the efficacy and effectiveness of any staffing methodology is required because it has workforce and industrial relations implications. Although there is significant literature available on the topic, there is a paucity of empirical evidence supporting claims of increased patient safety in the acute hospital setting, but some evidence exists relating to equity of workload for nurses. What does this paper add? This paper provides a contemporary qualitative analysis of empirical evidence using PRISMA methodology to conduct a systematic review of the available literature. It demonstrates a significant research gap to support claims of increased patient safety in the acute hospital setting. The paper calls for greatly improved datasets upon which research can be undertaken to determine any associations between mandated patient to nurse ratios and other staffing methodologies and patient safety and quality of care. What are the implications for practitioners? There is insufficient contemporary research to support staffing methodologies for appropriate staffing, balanced workloads and quality, safe care. Such research would include the establishment of nurse-sensitive patient outcomes measures, and more robust datasets are needed for empirical analysis to produce such evidence.


1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 36-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Johnson-Pawlson ◽  
Donna Lind Infeld

2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1629-1629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Mark ◽  
David W. Harless ◽  
Michael McCue ◽  
Yihua Xu

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Saville ◽  
Thomas Monks ◽  
Peter Griffiths ◽  
Jane Elisabeth Ball

BackgroundPlanning numbers of nursing staff allocated to each hospital ward (the ‘staffing establishment’) is challenging because both demand for and supply of staff vary. Having low numbers of registered nurses working on a shift is associated with worse quality of care and adverse patient outcomes, including higher risk of patient safety incidents. Most nurse staffing tools recommend setting staffing levels at the average needed but modelling studies suggest that this may not lead to optimal levels.ObjectiveUsing computer simulation to estimate the costs and understaffing/overstaffing rates delivered/caused by different approaches to setting staffing establishments.MethodsWe used patient and roster data from 81 inpatient wards in four English hospital Trusts to develop a simulation of nurse staffing. Outcome measures were understaffed/overstaffed patient shifts and the cost per patient-day. We compared staffing establishments based on average demand with higher and lower baseline levels, using an evidence-based tool to assess daily demand and to guide flexible staff redeployments and temporary staffing hires to make up any shortfalls.ResultsWhen baseline staffing was set to meet the average demand, 32% of patient shifts were understaffed by more than 15% after redeployment and hiring from a limited pool of temporary staff. Higher baseline staffing reduced understaffing rates to 21% of patient shifts. Flexible staffing reduced both overstaffing and understaffing but when used with low staffing establishments, the risk of critical understaffing was high, unless temporary staff were unlimited, which was associated with high costs.ConclusionWhile it is common practice to base staffing establishments on average demand, our results suggest that this may lead to more understaffing than setting establishments at higher levels. Flexible staffing, while an important adjunct to the baseline staffing, was most effective at avoiding understaffing when high numbers of permanent staff were employed. Low staffing establishments with flexible staffing saved money because shifts were unfilled rather than due to efficiencies. Thus, employing low numbers of permanent staff (and relying on temporary staff and redeployments) risks quality of care and patient safety.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document