scholarly journals Observational study of the relationship between nurse staffing levels and compliance with mandatory nutritional assessments in hospital

Author(s):  
A. Recio‐Saucedo ◽  
G. B. Smith ◽  
O. Redfern ◽  
A. Maruotti ◽  
P. Griffiths ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 706-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Bridges ◽  
Peter Griffiths ◽  
Emily Oliver ◽  
Ruth M Pickering

BackgroundExisting evidence indicates that reducing nurse staffing and/or skill mix adversely affects care quality. Nursing shortages may lead managers to dilute nursing team skill mix, substituting assistant personnel for registered nurses (RNs). However, no previous studies have described the relationship between nurse staffing and staff–patient interactions.SettingSix wards at two English National Health Service hospitals.MethodsWe observed 238 hours of care (n=270 patients). Staff–patient interactions were rated using the Quality of Interactions Schedule. RN, healthcare assistant (HCA) and patient numbers were used to calculate patient-to-staff ratios. Multilevel regression models explored the association between staffing levels, skill mix and the chance of an interaction being rated as ‘negative’ quality, rate at which patients experienced interactions and total amount of time patients spent interacting with staff per observed hour.Results10% of the 3076 observed interactions were rated as negative. The odds of a negative interaction increased significantly as the number of patients per RN increased (p=0.035, OR of 2.82 for ≥8 patients/RN compared with >6 to <8 patients/RN). A similar pattern was observed for HCA staffing but the relationship was not significant (p=0.056). When RN staffing was low, the odds of a negative interaction increased with higher HCA staffing. Rate of interactions per patient hour, but not total amount of interaction time, was related to RN and HCA staffing levels.ConclusionLow RN staffing levels are associated with changes in quality and quantity of staff–patient interactions. When RN staffing is low, increases in assistant staff levels are not associated with improved quality of staff–patient interactions. Beneficial effects from adding assistant staff are likely to be dependent on having sufficient RNs to supervise, limiting the scope for substitution.


Resuscitation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary B. Smith ◽  
Oliver Redfern ◽  
Antonello Maruotti ◽  
Alejandra Recio-Saucedo ◽  
Peter Griffiths

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (38) ◽  
pp. 1-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Griffiths ◽  
Jane Ball ◽  
Karen Bloor ◽  
Dankmar Böhning ◽  
Jim Briggs ◽  
...  

Background Low nurse staffing levels are associated with adverse patient outcomes from hospital care, but the causal relationship is unclear. Limited capacity to observe patients has been hypothesised as a causal mechanism. Objectives This study determines whether or not adverse outcomes are more likely to occur after patients experience low nurse staffing levels, and whether or not missed vital signs observations mediate any relationship. Design Retrospective longitudinal observational study. Multilevel/hierarchical mixed-effects regression models were used to explore the association between registered nurse (RN) and health-care assistant (HCA) staffing levels and outcomes, controlling for ward and patient factors. Setting and participants A total of 138,133 admissions to 32 general adult wards of an acute hospital from 2012 to 2015. Main outcomes Death in hospital, adverse event (death, cardiac arrest or unplanned intensive care unit admission), length of stay and missed vital signs observations. Data sources Patient administration system, cardiac arrest database, eRoster, temporary staff bookings and the Vitalpac system (System C Healthcare Ltd, Maidstone, Kent; formerly The Learning Clinic Limited) for observations. Results Over the first 5 days of stay, each additional hour of RN care was associated with a 3% reduction in the hazard of death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.0]. Days on which the HCA staffing level fell below the mean were associated with an increased hazard of death (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07), but the hazard of death increased as cumulative staffing exposures varied from the mean in either direction. Higher levels of temporary staffing were associated with increased mortality. Adverse events and length of stay were reduced with higher RN staffing. Overall, 16% of observations were missed. Higher RN staffing was associated with fewer missed observations in high-acuity patients (incidence rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99), whereas the overall rate of missed observations was related to overall care hours (RN + HCA) but not to skill mix. The relationship between low RN staffing and mortality was mediated by missed observations, but other relationships between staffing and mortality were not. Changing average skill mix and staffing levels to the levels planned by the Trust, involving an increase of 0.32 RN hours per patient day (HPPD) and a similar decrease in HCA HPPD, would be associated with reduced mortality, an increase in staffing costs of £28 per patient and a saving of £0.52 per patient per hospital stay, after accounting for the value of reduced stays. Limitations This was an observational study in a single site. Evidence of cause is not definitive. Variation in staffing could be influenced by variation in the assessed need for staff. Our economic analysis did not consider quality or length of life. Conclusions Higher RN staffing levels are associated with lower mortality, and this study provides evidence of a causal mechanism. There may be several causal pathways and the absolute rate of missed observations cannot be used to guide staffing decisions. Increases in nursing skill mix may be cost-effective for improving patient safety. Future work More evidence is required to validate approaches to setting staffing levels. Other aspects of missed nursing care should be explored using objective data. The implications of findings about both costs and temporary staffing need further exploration. Trial registration This study is registered as ISRCTN17930973. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Author(s):  
Jim Morey ◽  
Gary Scherzer ◽  
Hoseoup Lee ◽  
Kenneth Wallis ◽  
Laura Francis Gladney

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Seventy-three New York hospitals were examined to determine if a difference existed between hospitals with nursing unions versus those without as it pertains to fiscal viability and quality of care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Several financial variables were used to construct a fiscal viability index; and a quality index was created from selected mortality and procedural measures that may be used to measure specific aspects of institutional care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The premise that the union status of a hospital&rsquo;s nursing staff will influence fiscal viability and quality is based on the impact that unionization may have on staffing and cost per patient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The literature is replete with studies that assess the relationship between nurse staffing levels and quality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>In some cases there is a clear and compelling relationship, but in others, it is indeterminate. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Utilizing union status, selected employee variables, and financial and quality of care indices, four statistical models were prepared to explain these the interaction of these variables <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></p>


Medical Care ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 836-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana B. Mukamel ◽  
Taewoon Kang ◽  
Eric Collier ◽  
Charlene Harrington

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e035828
Author(s):  
Peter Griffiths ◽  
Christina Saville ◽  
Jane Ball ◽  
David Culliford ◽  
Natalie Pattison ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe best way to determine nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards is unclear. This study explores the precision of estimates of nurse staffing requirements made using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) patient classification system for different sample sizes and investigates whether recommended staff levels correspond with professional judgements of adequate staffing.DesignObservational study linking datasets of staffing requirements (estimated using a tool) to professional judgements of adequate staffing. Multilevel logistic regression modelling.Setting81 medical/surgical units in four acute care hospitals.Participants22 364 unit days where staffing levels and SNCT ratings were linked to nurse reports of "enough staff for quality".Primary outcome measuresSNCT-estimated staffing requirements and nurses’ assessments of staffing adequacy.ResultsThe recommended minimum sample of 20 days allowed the required number to employ (the establishment) to be estimated with a mean precision (defined as half the width of the CI as a percentage of the mean) of 4.1%. For most units, much larger samples were required to estimate establishments within ±1 whole time equivalent staff member. When staffing was lower than that required according to the SNCT, for each hour per patient day of registered nurse staffing below the required staffing level, the odds of nurses reporting that there were enough staff to provide quality care were reduced by 11%. Correspondingly, the odds of nurses reporting that necessary nursing care was left undone were increased by 14%. No threshold indicating an optimal staffing level was observed. Surgical specialty, patient turnover and more single rooms were associated with lower odds of staffing adequacy.ConclusionsThe SNCT can provide reliable estimates of the number of nurses to employ on a unit, but larger samples than the recommended minimum are usually required. The SNCT provides a measure of nursing workload that correlates with professional judgements, but the recommended staffing levels may not be optimal. Some important sources of systematic variations in staffing requirements for some units are not accounted for. SNCT measurements are a potentially useful adjunct to professional judgement but cannot replace it.Trial registration numberISRCTN12307968.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document