A systematic review of the association between nursing staff and nursing-sensitive outcomes in long-term institutional care.

AIMS: To examine the association between type of nursing staff and nursing-sensitive outcomes in long-term institutional care. DESIGN: This systematic review included studies published in English, German, and Dutch between January 1997 and January 2020. DATA SOURCES: The databases Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Original quantitative studies were included. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used to critically appraise the reporting of the studies. RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included. Of 33 quality of care outcomes, 21 were identified as nursing-sensitive outcomes of which 13 showed a significant association with nursing staff, specifically: Activities of daily living, aggressive behavior, bladder/bowel incontinence, contractures, expressive language skills, falls, infection (including vaccination), range of motion, pain, pressure ulcers, and weight loss. However, studies reported inconsistent results regarding the association among RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and HCAs and these nursing-sensitive outcomes, evidence shows that more RNs have a positive impact on nursing-sensitive outcomes. As to the evidence regarding the other type of nursing staff, especially HCA, findings regularly showed a negative association. CONCLUSION: Future research should be expanded with structure and process variables of which the mediating and moderating effect on nursing-sensitive outcomes is known. These may explain variances in quality of care and guide quality improvement initiatives. Researchers should consider fully applying Donabedian's structure-process-outcomes framework as it is a coherent entirety for quality assessment. IMPACT: This review provides an overview of quality of care outcomes that are responsive to nursing interventions in long-term institutional care. As the effects can be monitored and documented, quality assessment should focus on these nursing-sensitive outcomes. The inconclusive results make it difficult to provide recommendations on who should best perform which care.

The consistency between planned and actually given nursing care in long-terminstitutional care.

Continuous information exchange between healthcare professionals is facilitated by individualized care plans. Compliance with the planned care as documented in care plans is important to provide person-centered care which contributes to the continuity of care and quality of care outcomes. Using the Nursing Interventions Classification, this study examined the consistency between documented and actually provided interventions by type of nursing staff with 150 residents in long-term institutional care. The consistency was especially high for basic (93%) and complex (79%) physiological care. To a lesser extent for interventions in the behavioral domain (66%). Except for the safety domain, the probability that documented interventions were provided was high for all domains (≥ 91%, p > 0.05). NAs generally provided the interventions as documented. Findings suggest that HCAs worked beyond there scope of practice. The results may have implications for the deployment of nursing staff and are of importance to managers.

Accuracy of documentation in the nursing care plan in long-term institutional care.

Nursing staff working in long-term institutional care attend to residents with an increasing number of severe physical and cognitive limitations. To exchange information about the health status of these residents, accurate nursing documentation is important to ensure the safety of residents. This study examined the accuracy of nursing documentation in 197 care plans of five long-term institutional care facilities. Based on the phases of the nursing process, the D-Catch instrument measures the accuracy of the content and coherence of documentation. Inadequacies were especially found in the description of residents' care needs and stated nursing diagnoses as well as in progress and outcome reports. In somatic and psycho-geriatric units, higher accuracy scores were determined compared with residential care units. Investments in resources (e.g., time), reasoning skills of nursing staff, and implementation of professional standards in accordance with legal requirements may be needed to enhance the quality of nursing documentation.

Assessing time use in long-term institutional care: development, validity and inter-rater reliability of the Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC).

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined what is actually done in the process of care by nursing staff in long-term institutional care. The applied instruments employed different terminologies, and psychometric properties were inadequately described. This study aimed to develop and test an observational instrument to identify and examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions in long-term institutional care using a standardized language. METHODS: The Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC) is based on the conceptual framework of the Nursing Interventions Classification. Developmental, validation, and reliability stages of the GO-LTIC included: 1) item generation to identify potential setting-specific interventions; 2) examining content validity with a Delphi panel resulting in relevant interventions by calculating the item content validity index; 3) testing feasibility with trained observers observing nursing assistants; and 4) calculating inter-rater reliability using (non) agreement and Cohen's kappa for the identification of interventions and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the amount of time spent on interventions. Bland-Altman plots were applied to visualize the agreement between observers. A one-sample student T-test verified if the difference between observers differed significantly from zero. RESULTS: The final version of the GO-LTIC comprised 116 nursing interventions categorized into six domains. Substantial to almost perfect kappa's were found for interventions in the domains basic (0.67-0.92) and complex (0.70-0.94) physiological care. For the domains of behavioral, family, and health system interventions, the kappa's ranged from fair to almost perfect (0.30-1.00). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the amount of time spent on interventions ranged from fair to excellent for the physiological domains (0.48-0.99) and poor to excellent for the other domains (0.00-1.00). Bland Altman plots indicated that the clinical magnitude of differences in minutes was small. No statistical significant differences between observers (p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The GO-LTIC shows good content validity and acceptable inter-rater reliability to examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions by nursing staff. This may provide managers with valuable information to make decisions about resource allocation, task allocation of nursing staff, and the examination of the costs of nursing services.

Examining Time Use of Dutch Nursing Staff in Long-Term Institutional Care: A Time-Motion Study.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing residents' acuity levels and available resources in long-term institutional care requires insight into the care provided by nursing staff so as to guide task allocation and optimal use of resources, and enhance quality of care. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between time use and type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type by using a standardized nursing intervention classification. DESIGN: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study was performed using time-motion technique. SETTING: Five Dutch long-term institutional care facilities participated. In total, 4 residential care units, 3 somatic units, and 6 psycho-geriatric units were included. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 136 nursing staff members: 19 registered nurses, 89 nursing assistants, 9 primary caregivers, and 19 health care assistants. MEASUREMENTS: A structured observation list was used based on the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). Residents' acuity levels, representing residents' needs, were based on the Dutch Care Severity Index. Medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for time spent on interventions per type of nursing staff and units. Linear mixed models were used to examine the relationship between time spent on nursing interventions and the type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type. RESULTS: Observations resulted in 52,628 registered minutes for 102 nursing interventions categorized into 6 NIC domains for 335 residents. Nursing staff spent the most time on direct care interventions, particularly in the domain of basic physiological care. Variances in time spent on interventions between types of nursing staff were minimal. Unit type was more significantly (P < .05) associated with time spent on interventions in domains than the type of nursing staff. Residents' acuity levels did not affect time spent by nursing staff (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The current study found limited evidence for task allocation between the types of nursing staff, which may suggest a blurring of role differentiation. Also, findings suggest that residents received similar care regardless of their needs, implying that care is predominantly task-oriented instead of person-centered. Managers may reconsider whether the needs of residents are adequately met by qualified nursing staff, considering the differences in education and taking into account increasing acuity levels of residents and available resources.