Nurse staffing levels and outcomes - mining the UK national data sets for insight.

Purpose Despite the generation of mass data by the nursing workforce, determining the impact of the contribution to patient safety remains challenging. Several cross-sectional studies have indicated a relationship between staffing and safety. The purpose of this paper is to uncover possible associations and explore if a deeper understanding of relationships between staffing and other factors such as safety could be revealed within routinely collected national data sets. Design/methodology/approach Two longitudinal routinely collected data sets consisting of 30 years of UK nurse staffing data and seven years of National Health Service (NHS) benchmark data such as survey results, safety and other indicators were used. A correlation matrix was built and a linear correlation operation was applied (Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient). Findings A number of associations were revealed within both the UK staffing data set and the NHS benchmarking data set. However, the challenges of using these data sets soon became apparent. Practical implications Staff time and effort are required to collect these data. The limitations of these data sets include inconsistent data collection and quality. The mode of data collection and the itemset collected should be reviewed to generate a data set with robust clinical application. Originality/value This paper revealed that relationships are likely to be complex and non-linear; however, the main contribution of the paper is the identification of the limitations of routinely collected data. Much time and effort is expended in collecting this data; however, its validity, usefulness and method of routine national data collection appear to require re-examination.

The Experiences of Specialist Nurses Working Within the Uro-oncology Multidisciplinary Team in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: United Kingdom prostate cancer nursing care is provided by a variety of urology and uro-oncology nurses. The experience of working in multidisciplinary teams (MDT) was investigated in a national study. DESIGN: The study consisted of a national survey with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a data subset from a UK whole population survey was undertaken (n = 285) of the specialist nursing workforce and the services they provide. Data were collected on the experience of working in the MDT. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of the respondents felt that they worked in a functional MDT, 12% felt that they worked in a dysfunctional MDT, and 3.5% found the MDT meeting intimidating. Furthermore, 34% of the nurses felt that they could constructively challenge all members of the MDT in meetings. Themes emerging from open-ended questions were lack of interest in nonmedical concerns by other team members, ability to constructively challenge decisions or views within the meeting, and little opportunity for patients' wishes to be expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expertise and experience, nurses had a variable, often negative, experience of the MDT. It is necessary to ensure that all participants can contribute and are heard and valued. More emphasis should be given to patients' nonmedical needs.