Excellence and evidence in staffing: a data-driven model for excellence in staffing (2nd edition).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, 2010) and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM, 2011) Future of Nursing report have prompted changes in the U.S. health care system. This has also stimulated a new direction of thinking for the profession of nursing. New payment and priority structures, where value is placed ahead of volume in care, will start to define our health system in new and unknown ways for years. One thing we all know for sure: we cannot afford the same inefficient models and systems of care of yesterday any longer. The Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing was created as the organizing framework to lead the development of best practices for nurse staffing across the continuum through research and innovation. Regardless of the setting, nurses must integrate multiple concepts with the value of professional nursing to create new care and staffing models. Traditional models demonstrate that nurses are a commodity. If the profession is to make any significant changes in nurse staffing, it is through the articulation of the value of our professional practice within the overall health care environment. This position paper is organized around the concepts from the Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing. The main concepts are: Core Concept 1: Users and Patients of Health Care, Core Concept 2: Providers of Health Care, Core Concept 3: Environment of Care, Core Concept 4: Delivery of Care, Core Concept 5: Quality, Safety, and Outcomes of Care. This position paper provides a comprehensive view of those concepts and components, why those concepts and components are important in this new era of nurse staffing, and a 3-year challenge that will push the nursing profession forward in all settings across the care continuum. There are decades of research supporting various changes to nurse staffing. Yet little has been done to move that research into practice and operations. While the primary goal of this position paper is to generate research and innovative thinking about nurse staffing across all health care settings, a second goal is to stimulate additional publications. This includes a goal of at least 20 articles in Nursing Economic$ on best practices in staffing and care models from across the continuum over the next 3 years.

Analysis of Hospitals Switching From a "Danger to Self" Question to Universal Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screening: Impact on Screenings, Identification of Suicide Risk, and Documented Psychiatric Care.

Objective: Sutter Health launched system-wide general population standardized suicide screening with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) screen (triage) version in 23 hospitals in 2019, replacing a one-question "danger to self" (DTS) assessment. This study analyzed the impact of C-SSRS implementation on screening rates, positive screenings, and documented psychiatric care within 90 days for all patients and a subgroup diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Methods: Adults seen at hospitals in the pre-period (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2019) and post-period (July 1, 2019-December 31, 2020) were identified using electronic health records. Outcomes were compared using chi-square statistics and interrupted time series (ITS) models. Results: Pre-period, 92.8% (740,984/798,653) of patients were screened by DTS versus 84.6% (504,015/595,915) by C-SSRS in the post-period. Positive screening rates were 1.5% pre-period and 2.2% post-period, and 9.2% pre-period versus 10.8% post-period for those with MDD. Among individuals with positive screenings, 64.0% (pre-period) had documented follow-up psychiatric care versus 52.5% post-period and 66.4% of those with moderate or high-risk. Among all patients seen there was an overall increase in documentation of psychiatric care within 90 days (0.87% pre- to 0.96% post-period). ITS models revealed a 9.6% decline in screening, 1.3% increase in positive screenings, and 12.9% decline in documented psychiatric care following C-SSRS implementation (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Following implementation, there was meaningful increase in suicide risk identification, and an increase in the proportion of patients with documented psychiatric care. Observed relative declines in screening warrant future research examining opportunities and barriers to general population C-SSRS use.

Homelessness Among Acute Care Patients Within a Large Health Care System in Northern California.

The impacts of homelessness on health and health care access are detrimental. Intervention and efforts to improve outcomes and increase availability of affordable housing have mainly originated from the public health sector and government. The role that large community-based health systems may play has yet to be established. This study characterizes patients self-identified as homeless in acute care facilities in a large integrated health care system in Northern California to inform the development of collaborative interventions addressing unmet needs of this vulnerable population. The authors compared sociodemographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and health care utilization of individuals who did and did not self-identify as homeless and characterized their geographical distribution in relation to Sutter hospitals and homeless resources. Between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020, 5% (N = 20,259) of the acute care settings patients had evidence of homelessness, among which 51.1% age <45 years, 66.4% males, and 24% non-Hispanic Black. Patients experiencing homelessness had higher emergency department utilization and lower utilization of outpatient and urgent care services. Mental health conditions were more common among patients experiencing homelessness. More than half of the hospitals had >5% of patients who identified as homeless. Some hospitals with higher proportions of patients experiencing homelessness are not located near many shelter resources. By understanding patients who self-identify as homeless, it is possible to assess the role of the health system in addressing their unmet needs. Accurate identification is the first step for the health systems to develop and deliver better solutions through collaborations with nonprofit organizations, community partners, and government agencies.

Implementing universal suicide screening in a large healthcare system's hospitals: rates of screening, suicide risk, and documentation of subsequent psychiatric care.

Implementation of suicide risk screening may improve prevention and facilitate mental health treatment. This study analyzed implementation of universal general population screening using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) within hospitals. The study included adults seen at 23 hospitals from 7/1/2019-12/31/2020. We describe rates of screening, suicide risk, and documented subsequent psychiatric care (i.e., transfer/discharge to psychiatric acute care, or referral/consultation with system-affiliated behavioral health providers). Patients with suicide risk (including those with Major Depressive Disorder [MDD]) were compared to those without using Wilcoxon rank-sum -tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Results reported are statistically significant at p < 0.05 level. Among 595,915 patients, 84.5% were screened by C-SSRS with 2.2% of them screening positive (37.6% low risk [i.e., ideation only], and 62.4% moderate or high risk [i.e., with a plan, intent, or suicidal behaviors]). Of individuals with suicide risk, 52.5% had documentation of psychiatric care within 90 days. Individuals with suicide risk (vs. without) were male (48.1% vs 43.0%), Non-Hispanic White (55.0% vs 47.8%), younger (mean age 41.0 [SD: 17.7] vs. 49.8 [SD: 20.4]), housing insecure (12.5% vs 2.6%), with mental health diagnoses (80.3% vs 25.1%), including MDD (41.3% vs 6.7%). Universal screening identified 2.2% of screened adults with suicide risk; 62.4% expressed a plan, intent or suicidal behaviors, and 80.3% had mental health diagnoses. Documented subsequent psychiatric care likely underestimates true rates due to care fragmentation. These findings reinforce the need for screening, and research on whether screening leads to improved care and fewer suicides.

This study reported outcomes of standardized suicide screening using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale among adults in 23 hospitals in a large health system in northern California between 7/1/2019 and 12/31/2020. Out of 595,915 patients seen in hospital inpatient or emergency departments, 84.5% were screened and among them 2.2% had suicide risk, 41.3% of whom had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Compared to patients without suicide risk, a higher proportion of patients who screened positive for suicide risk were male, Non-Hispanic White, younger, recently homeless, and had co-occurring mental health diagnoses. Overall, 52.5% of those screening positive for suicide risk had documentation of subsequent psychiatric care within the health system within 90 days and this rate was even higher (73%) for individuals whose screenings indicated the highest risk. These findings reinforce the need for increased screening, and research to determine whether screening leads to improved care and fewer suicides.

Taking charge: front-line nurse leadership development.

The recent Institute of Medicine (2010) report, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, included a recommendation that nurses at all levels should be prepared and enabled to lead change to advance health care in the United States. Historically, in most organizations, nursing leadership development programs have focused on nurses in management or executive roles rather than those working in front-line leadership roles. This article describes a front-line leadership development initiative developed by Tenet Healthcare Corporation and attended by 400 charge nurses. Program development, evaluation, and lessons learned that can be applied in other organizations are discussed.

Voices Without Volume:: Was the Voice of Nursing Missing From the COVID-19 Pandemic?

When our nation was challenged by a global pandemic in 2020, nursing stepped forward to carry out what needed to be done-to take care of the nation's people. As the pandemic evolved and became the largest single public health concern of our modern times, there seemed to be a void of the profession of nursing being involved in the strategy to address the pandemic. Although there were many nurse leaders across our nation speaking for their organizations and working tirelessly to ensure they delivered the care necessary, it seemed to this author that the voice of nursing was missing at the highest levels of our state and government agencies. As nurses, we own our profession and have a responsibility to elevate the profession to a level of respect and trust that when the next public health crisis occurs, nursing is sitting at the table, ready to contribute to the strategy to save our patients' lives.

The Importance and Impact of Nurse Leader Engagement With State Nursing Workforce Centers: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unparalleled morbidity and mortality across the globe. Health care agencies, public health departments, and academic institutions experienced widespread disruption to usual operations. These events had an adverse impact on the nursing workforce. Nurse leaders in California rallied to identify and remediate the effects of COVID-19 on the nursing workforce. This article describes the strategy and interventions. Nurse leaders should invest resources in state workforce centers to ensure the health and supply of a strong nursing workforce.

Charge nurse perspectives on frontline leadership in acute care environments.

A recently issued report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States on the Future of Nursing included a recommendation that nurses should receive leadership development at every level in order to transform the healthcare system. Charge nurses, at the frontline of patient care in acute care settings, are in key positions to lead this change. This paper presents findings from research conducted with nurses in the Tenet Health System. Charge nurses from ten facilities who attended a one-day work shop were surveyed to gain insight into the experience of being a frontline leader in today's acute care environment. The relationship of these findings to the IOM report and the implications for both the Tenet Health System and other healthcare organizations that are working to support nurses who assume these challenging roles are discussed.