Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

Cross-sectional examination of the association between shift length and hospital nurses job satisfaction and nurse reported quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-four hour nursing care involves shift work including 12-h shifts. England is unusual in deploying a mix of shift patterns. International evidence on the effects of such shifts is growing. A secondary analysis of data collected in England exploring outcomes with 12-h shifts examined the association between shift length, job satisfaction, scheduling flexibility, care quality, patient safety, and care left undone. METHODS: Data were collected from a questionnaire survey of nurses in a sample of English hospitals, conducted as part of the RN4CAST study, an EU 7th Framework funded study. The sample comprised 31 NHS acute hospital Trusts from 401 wards, in 46 acute hospital sites. Descriptive analysis included frequencies, percentages and mean scores by shift length, working beyond contracted hours and day or night shift. Multi-level regression models established statistical associations between shift length and nurse self-reported measures. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent (1898) of nurses worked a day shift and 26% (670) a night shift. Most Trusts had a mixture of shifts lengths. Self-reported quality of care was higher amongst nurses working ≤8 h (15.9%) compared to those working longer hours (20.0 to 21.1%). The odds of poor quality care were 1.64 times higher for nurses working ≥12 h (OR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.18-2.28, p = 0.003). Mean 'care left undone' scores varied by shift length: 3.85 (≤8 h), 3.72 (8.01-10.00 h), 3.80 (10.01-11.99 h) and were highest amongst those working ≥12 h (4.23) (p < 0.001). The rate of care left undone was 1.13 times higher for nurses working ≥12 h (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20, p < 0.001). Job dissatisfaction was higher the longer the shift length: 42.9% (≥12 h (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.95, p = .001); 35.1% (≤8 h) 45.0% (8.01-10.00 h), 39.5% (10.01-11.99 h). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to the growing international body of evidence reporting that ≥12 shifts are associated with poor ratings of quality of care and higher rates of care left undone. Future research should focus on how 12-h shifts can be optimised to minimise potential risks.

Nurse forecasting in Europe (RN4CAST): Rationale, design and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Current human resources planning models in nursing are unreliable and ineffective as they consider volumes, but ignore effects on quality in patient care. The project RN4CAST aims innovative forecasting methods by addressing not only volumes, but quality of nursing staff as well as quality of patient care. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-country, multilevel cross-sectional design is used to obtain important unmeasured factors in forecasting models including how features of hospital work environments impact on nurse recruitment, retention and patient outcomes. In each of the 12 participating European countries, at least 30 general acute hospitals were sampled. Data are gathered via four data sources (nurse, patient and organizational surveys and via routinely collected hospital discharge data). All staff nurses of a random selection of medical and surgical units (at least 2 per hospital) were surveyed. The nurse survey has the purpose to measure the experiences of nurses on their job (e.g. job satisfaction, burnout) as well as to allow the creation of aggregated hospital level measures of staffing and working conditions. The patient survey is organized in a sub-sample of countries and hospitals using a one-day census approach to measure the patient experiences with medical and nursing care. In addition to conducting a patient survey, hospital discharge abstract datasets will be used to calculate additional patient outcomes like in-hospital mortality and failure-to-rescue. Via the organizational survey, information about the organizational profile (e.g. bed size, types of technology available, teaching status) is collected to control the analyses for institutional differences.This information will be linked via common identifiers and the relationships between different aspects of the nursing work environment and patient and nurse outcomes will be studied by using multilevel regression type analyses. These results will be used to simulate the impact of changing different aspects of the nursing work environment on quality of care and satisfaction of the nursing workforce. DISCUSSION: RN4CAST is one of the largest nurse workforce studies ever conducted in Europe, will add to accuracy of forecasting models and generate new approaches to more effective management of nursing resources in Europe.

Can lessons be learned from history? The origins of the British imperial nurse labour market: a discussion paper.

The British government's involvement in overseas nurse recruitment originated in its imperial past when the Colonial Nursing Service was established in 1940 by the Colonial Office to unify the administration of British nurse appointments across the Empire. The Colonial Office unified recruitment arrangements for colonial nursing posts, effectively creating an imperial market in nursing labour, which arguably set the historical precedent for the greater flow of international nurse recruitment from and to the United Kingdom (UK). The recent implementation of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Overseas Nurses Programme to regulate the registration route for international nurse recruits to the UK is symptomatic of growing international nurse migration. In a globalising marketplace, overseas nurse recruitment remains a significant supply factor in meeting the staffing needs of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. The continuities between the historical case of the Colonial Nursing Service and the current prevalence of transnational nurse migration highlight a pervading tension between the professional agenda of nursing and recruiters' and governments' responses to market pressures.