A comparative analysis of NCLEX pass rates: Nursing health human resources considerations.

AIMS: To examine performance differences among different writers of the National Council Licensure Examination-Registered Nurse (NCLEX-RN) examination in Canada; to compare Canadian and U.S. writer pass rate data; and to identify if changes in the Canadian nursing workforce can be related to the introduction of NCLEX-RN. BACKGROUND: In January 2015, the entry-to-practice licensing examination changed from the Canadian Registered Nurse Examination to the NCLEX-RN, and pass rates declined. METHODS: This comparative analytic study examined NCLEX-RN pass rate data for 2015, 2016 and 2017 using publicly available data. The Canadian data were compared with that from U.S. nurses taking the examination. RESULTS: Overall year-end pass rates among Canadian writers appeared to improve significantly in 2016 (95% to 96.3%, p < 0.001, from 2015 to 2016) but declined again from 96.3% to 90.4% in 2017 (p < 0.001). Pass rates remain significantly lower for first attempt Canadian writers compared to first attempt U.S. writers (2015: 69.7% vs. 84.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The change in licensing examination had a major impact on pass rates for new graduates entering the nursing profession and potentially the number of new nurses entering the profession in Canada immediately after graduation. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: A loss of entry-level workers to the nursing profession in Canada affects workforce management strategies, particularly with respect to worker shortages.

Comparing patient-reported outcomes across countries: An assessment of methodological challenges.

OBJECTIVES: There is little published literature on the comparison of patient-reported outcomes between countries. This study aimed to assess pre- and postoperative health among samples of patients undergoing elective groin hernia repair procedures in the National Health Service (NHS), England, and groin hernia patients in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: We used datasets from two different sources. For the English NHS we used published anonymized patient-level data files which include the EQ-5D(3L) patient-reported outcome measure and a number of demographic and clinical characteristics. For Vancouver, we used data from a sample of Vancouver patients who completed the same instrument during a similar time frame. English patients were matched with Vancouver participant's characteristics using propensity score methods. A linear regression model was used to measure differences in postoperative visual analogue scale values between countries, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Our study revealed a range of methodological issues concerning the comparability of patient-reported outcomes following hernia repair surgery in the two health systems. These related to differences in approaches to collecting patient-reported outcome measures and the nature of explanatory variables (self-report vs. administrative data), among other challenges. As a consequence, there were differences between the matched samples and the NHS data, indicating a healthy participant bias. Unadjusted results found that Vancouver patients (N = 280) reported more problems in domains of mobility, self care, usual activities and anxiety/depression than the matched cohort of NHS patients (N = 840). Interpreting differences is challenging given different sampling designs. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant hurdles facing comparisons of surgical patients' outcomes between countries, including adjusting for patient differences, health system factors and approaches to survey administration. While between-country comparisons of surgical outcomes using patient-reported outcomes shows significant promise, much work on standardizing sampling design, variables and analytic methods is needed.