Inpatient midwifery staffing levels and postpartum readmissions: a retrospective multicentre longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Preventing readmission to hospital after giving birth is a key priority, as rates have been rising along with associated costs. There are many contributing factors to readmission, and some are thought to be preventable. Nurse and midwife understaffing has been linked to deficits in care quality. This study explores the relationship between staffing levels and readmission rates in maternity settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal study using routinely collected individual patient data in three maternity services in England from 2015 to 2020. Data on admissions, discharges and case-mix were extracted from hospital administration systems. Staffing and workload were calculated in Hours Per Patient day per shift in the first two 12-hour shifts of the index (birth) admission. Postpartum readmissions and staffing exposures for all birthing admissions were entered into a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the odds of readmission when staffing was below the mean level for the maternity service. RESULTS: 64 250 maternal admissions resulted in birth and 2903 mothers were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (4.5%). Absolute levels of staffing ranged between 2.3 and 4.1 individuals per midwife in the three services. Below average midwifery staffing was associated with higher rates of postpartum readmissions within 7 days of discharge (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.108, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.223). The effect was smaller and not statistically significant for readmissions within 30 days of discharge (aOR 1.080, 95% CI 0.994 to 1.174). Below average maternity assistant staffing was associated with lower rates of postpartum readmissions (7 days, aOR 0.957, 95% CI 0.867 to 1.057; 30 days aOR 0.965, 95% CI 0.887 to 1.049, both not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: We found evidence that lower than expected midwifery staffing levels is associated with more postpartum readmissions. The nature of the relationship requires further investigation including examining potential mediating factors and reasons for readmission in maternity populations.

The association between nurse staffing and quality of care in emergency departments: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between nurse staffing, skill-mix and quality of care has been well-established in medical and surgical settings, however, there is relatively limited evidence of this relationship in emergency departments. Those that have been published identified that lower nurse staffing levels in emergency departments are generally associated with worse outcomes with the conclusion that the evidence in emergency settings was, at best, weak. METHODS: We searched thirteen electronic databases for potentially eligible papers published in English up to December 2023. Studies were included if they reported on patient outcomes associated with nurse staffing within emergency departments. Observational, cross-sectional, prospective, retrospective, interrupted time-series designs, difference-in-difference, randomised control trials or quasi-experimental studies and controlled before and after studies study designs were considered for inclusion. Team members independently screened titles and abstracts. Data was synthesised using a narrative approach. RESULTS: We identified 16 papers for inclusion; the majority of the studies (n = 10/16) were observational. The evidence reviewed identified that poorer staffing levels within emergency departments are associated with increased patient wait times, a higher proportion of patients who leave without being seen and an increased length of stay. Lower levels of nurse staffing are also associated with an increase in time to medications and therapeutic interventions, and increased risk of cardiac arrest within the emergency department. CONCLUSION: Overall, there remains limited high-quality empirical evidence addressing the association between emergency department nurse staffing and patient outcomes. However, it is evident that lower levels of nurse staffing are associated with adverse events that can result in delays to the provision of care and serious outcomes for patients. There is a need for longitudinal studies coupled with research that considers the relationship with skill-mix, other staffing grades and patient outcomes as well as a wider range of geographical settings. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Lower levels of nurse staffing in emergency departments are associated with delays in patients receiving treatments and poor quality care including an increase in leaving without being seen, delay in accessing treatments and medications and cardiac arrest.

Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study.

Background: The frequency at which patients should have their vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation) measured on hospital wards is currently unknown. Current National Health Service monitoring protocols are based on expert opinion but supported by little empirical evidence. The challenge is finding the balance between insufficient monitoring (risking missing early signs of deterioration and delays in treatment) and over-observation of stable patients (wasting resources needed in other aspects of care). Objective: Provide an evidence-based approach to creating monitoring protocols based on a patient's risk of deterioration and link these to nursing workload and economic impact. Design: Our study consisted of two parts: (1) an observational study of nursing staff to ascertain the time to perform vital sign observations; and (2) a retrospective study of historic data on patient admissions exploring the relationships between National Early Warning Score and risk of outcome over time. These were underpinned by opinions and experiences from stakeholders. Setting and participants: Observational study: observed nursing staff on 16 randomly selected adult general wards at four acute National Health Service hospitals. Retrospective study: extracted, linked and analysed routinely collected data from two large National Health Service acute trusts; data from over 400,000 patient admissions and 9,000,000 vital sign observations. Results: Observational study found a variety of practices, with two hospitals having registered nurses take the majority of vital sign observations and two favouring healthcare assistants or student nurses. However, whoever took the observations spent roughly the same length of time. The average was 5:01 minutes per observation over a 'round', including time to locate and prepare the equipment and travel to the patient area. Retrospective study created survival models predicting the risk of outcomes over time since the patient was last observed. For low-risk patients, there was little difference in risk between 4 hours and 24 hours post observation. Conclusions: We explored several different scenarios with our stakeholders (clinicians and patients), based on how 'risk' could be managed in different ways. Vital sign observations are often done more frequently than necessary from a bald assessment of the patient's risk, and we show that a maximum threshold of risk could theoretically be achieved with less resource. Existing resources could therefore be redeployed within a changed protocol to achieve better outcomes for some patients without compromising the safety of the rest. Our work supports the approach of the current monitoring protocol, whereby patients' National Early Warning Score 2 guides observation frequency. Existing practice is to observe higher-risk patients more frequently and our findings have shown that this is objectively justified. It is worth noting that important nurse-patient interactions take place during vital sign monitoring and should not be eliminated under new monitoring processes. Our study contributes to the existing evidence on how vital sign observations should be scheduled. However, ultimately, it is for the relevant professionals to decide how our work should be used. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN10863045. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/03) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patient recovery in hospital is tracked by measuring heart rate, blood pressure and other 'vital signs' and converting them into a score. These are 'observed' regularly by nursing staff so that deterioration can be spotted early. However, taking observations can disturb patients, and taking them too often causes extra work for staff. More frequent monitoring is recommended for higher scores, but evidence is lacking. To work out how often patients should be monitored, we needed to know how likely it is for patients to become more unwell between observations. We analysed over 400,000 patient records from two hospitals to understand how scores change with time. We looked at three of the most serious risks for patients in hospital. These risks are dying, needing intensive care or having a cardiac arrest. We also looked at the risk that a patient's condition would deteriorate significantly before their measurements were taken again. We identified early signs of deterioration and how changes in vital signs affected the risk of a patient's condition becoming worse. From this we calculated a maximum risk of deterioration. We then calculated different monitoring schedules that keep individual patients below this risk level. Some of those would consume less staff time than current National Health Service guidelines suggest. We also watched staff record patients' vital signs. We learnt it takes about 5 minutes to take these measurements from each patient. This information helped us calculate how costs would change if patients' vital signs were taken more or less often. We found that patients with a low overall score could have their vital signs monitored less often without being in danger of serious harm. This frees up nursing time so that patients with a higher score can be monitored more often. Importantly, this can be achieved without employing more staff.

The association between midwifery staffing and reported harmful incidents: a cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Independent inquiries have identified that appropriate staffing in maternity units is key to enabling quality care and minimising harm, but optimal staffing levels can be difficult to achieve when there is a shortage of midwives. The services provided and how they are staffed (total staffing, skill-mix and deployment) have been changing, and the effects of workforce changes on care quality and outcomes have not been assessed. This study aims to explore the association between daily midwifery staffing levels and the rate of reported harmful incidents affecting mothers and babies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of daily reports of clinical incidents in maternity inpatient areas matched with inpatient staffing levels for three maternity services in England, using data from April 2015 to February 2020. Incidents resulting in harm to mothers or babies was the primary outcome measure. Staffing levels were calculated from daily staffing rosters, quantified in Hours Per Patient Day (HPPD) for midwives and maternity assistants. Understaffing was defined as staffing below the mean for the service. A negative binomial hierarchical model was used to assess the relationship between exposure to low staffing and reported incidents involving harm. RESULTS: The sample covered 106,904 maternal admissions over 46 months. The rate of harmful incidents in each of the three services ranged from 2.1 to 3.0 per 100 admissions across the study period. Understaffing by registered midwives was associated with an 11% increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 1.110, 95% CI 1.002,1.229). Understaffing by maternity assistants was not associated with an increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 0.919, 95% 0.813,1.039). Analysis of specific types of incidents showed no statistically significant associations, but most of the point estimates were in the direction of increased incidents when services were understaffed. CONCLUSION: When there is understaffing by registered midwives, more harmful incidents are reported but understaffing by maternity assistants is not associated with higher risk of harms. Adequate registered midwife staffing levels are crucial for maintaining safety. Changes in the profile of maternity service workforces need to be carefully scrutinised to prevent mothers and babies being put at risk of avoidable harm.

Evidence on the use of Birthrate Plus® to guide safe staffing in maternity services - A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Birthrate Plus® is a widely used tool that informs decisions about the number of midwifery staff needed to provide safe and high quality care in maternity services. Evidence about the effectiveness, validity, reliability, and feasibility of tools such as this is needed. OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe and analyse the available evidence supporting the use of Birthrate Plus. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Scopus, Academic Search, British Library Ethos, Directory of Open Access Journals and Science Direct. Studies were eligible if they reported empirical data relevant to the validity, reliability, or useability of Birthrate Plus or if they measured the impact on staffing levels, outcomes, costs or provided a comparison with other methods. RESULTS: 23 sources of evidence were identified and reviewed. We found no prospective intervention studies on the use of Birthrate Plus to demonstrate outcomes for mothers, babies or staff wellbeing. Nor did we find studies comparing the tool to other methods or addressing resource use. Most of the evidence was descriptive, focussing on the use of the tool or the results of Birthrate Plus assessments. There is some evidence of the reliability of application of categories within the tool, the ability of the tool to detect variation in demand and to highlight staff shortages. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of traditional hierarchies of evidence, the evidence for Birthrate Plus is weak. There is a need for more independent research or simulation using real world data to understand how the tool performs in the current context of midwifery practice.

The important factors nurses consider when choosing shift patterns: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: To gain a deeper understanding of what is important to nurses when thinking about shift patterns and the organisation of working time. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of nursing staff working across the UK and Ireland collected quantitative and qualitative responses. METHODS: We recruited from two National Health Service Trusts and through an open call via trade union membership, online/print nursing profession magazines and social media. Worked versus preferred shift length/pattern, satisfaction and choice over shift patterns and nurses' views on aspects related to work and life (when working short, long, rotating shifts) were analysed with comparisons of proportions of agreement and crosstabulation. Qualitative responses on important factors related to shift preferences were analysed with inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy-three survey responses were collected. When nurses worked long shifts and rotating shifts, lower proportions reported being satisfied with their shifts and working their preferred shift length and pattern. Limited advantages were realised when comparing different shift types; however, respondents more frequently associated 'low travel costs' and 'better ability to do paid overtime' with long shifts and 'healthy diet/exercise' with short shifts; aspects related to rotating shifts often had the lowest proportions of agreement. In the qualitative analysis, three themes were developed: 'When I want to work', 'Impacts to my life outside work' and 'Improving my work environment'. Reasons for nurses' shift preferences were frequently related to nurses' priorities outside of work, highlighting the importance of organising schedules that support a good work-life balance. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: General scheduling practices like adhering to existing shift work guidelines, using consistent and predictable shift patterns and facilitating flexibility over working time were identified by nurses as enablers for their preferences and priorities. These practices warrant meaningful consideration when establishing safe and efficient nurse rosters. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This survey was developed and tested with a diverse group of stakeholders, including nursing staff, patients, union leads and ward managers. REPORTING METHOD: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies (STROBE) checklist for cross-sectional studies was used to guide reporting.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of improved nurse staffing levels and skill mix in acute hospitals: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research shows associations between increased nurse staffing levels, skill mix and patient outcomes. However, showing that improved staffing levels are linked to improved outcomes is not sufficient to provide a case for increasing them. This review of economic studies in acute hospitals aims to identify costs and consequences associated with different nurse staffing configurations in hospitals. METHODS: We included economic studies exploring the effect of variation in nurse staffing. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase Econlit, Cochrane library, DARE, NHS EED and the INAHTA website. Risk of bias was assessed using a framework based on the NICE guidance for public health reviews and Henrikson's framework for economic evaluations. Inclusion, data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by pairs of reviewers with disagreements resolved by the entire review team. Results were synthesised using a hierarchical matrix to summarise findings of economic evaluations. RESULTS: We found 23 observational studies conducted in the United States of America (16), Australia, Belgium, China, South Korea, and the United Kingdom (3). Fourteen had high risk of bias and nine moderate. Most studies addressed levels of staffing by RNs and/or licensed practical nurses. Six studies found that increased nurse staffing levels were associated with improved outcomes and reduced or unchanged net costs, but most showed increased costs and outcomes. Studies undertaken outside the USA showed that increased nurse staffing was likely to be cost-effective at a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) threshold or lower. Four studies found that increased skill mix was associated with improved outcomes but increased staff costs. Three studies considering net costs found increased registered nurse skill mix associated with net savings and similar or improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although more evidence on cost-effectiveness is still needed, increases in absolute or relative numbers of registered nurses in general medical and surgical wards have the potential to be highly cost-effective. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that increasing the proportion of registered nurses is associated with improved outcomes and, potentially, reduced net cost. Conversely, policies that lead to a reduction in the proportion of registered nurses in nursing teams could give worse outcomes at increased costs and there is no evidence that such approaches are cost-effective. In an era of registered nurse scarcity, these results favour investment in registered nurse supply as opposed to using lesser qualified staff as substitutes, especially where baseline nurse staffing and skill mix are low. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021281202). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Increasing registered nurse staffing and skill mix can be a net cost-saving solution to nurse shortages. Contrary to the strong policy push towards a dilution of nursing skill mix, investment in supply of RNs should become the priority.

Clinical efficacy of IgM-enriched immunoglobulin as adjunctive therapy in neonatal and pediatric sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Sepsis is a major cause of mortality and morbidity globally, with around one-quarter of all sepsis-related deaths occurring in children under the age of 5. We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an IgM-enriched immunoglobulin preparation in pediatrics patients and neonates with sepsis. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase databases were performed in November 2022, with no date limitations, to identify studies in which IgM-enriched immunoglobulin was used as adjunctive therapy in neonatal and pediatric patients with sepsis. Results: In total, 15 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, 13 neonatal studies and 2 pediatric studies. Pooled estimates from all studies indicated that mortality rates were significantly lower in patients who received treatment with the IgM-enriched immunoglobulin compared with controls (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.32-0.55). Further analyses in neonatal studies, alone, showed a significant benefit with longer treatment durations (>3 days) vs. the recommended treatment duration (3 days) (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.22-0.47) vs. (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.92). Treatment with IgM-enriched immunoglobulin was associated with a lower mortality risk compared with controls in prospective studies vs. retrospective analyses (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.27-0.51) vs. (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.41-1.30). Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that adjunctive treatment with IgM-enriched immunoglobulin may reduce the risk of mortality in neonatal and pediatric populations. However, large randomized controlled trials are required to further substantiate and evaluate these findings.

Staffing levels and hospital mortality in England: a national panel study using routinely collected data.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the association between multiple clinical staff levels and case-mix adjusted patient mortality in English hospitals. Most studies investigating the association between hospital staffing levels and mortality have focused on single professional groups, in particular nursing. However, single staff group studies might overestimate effects or neglect important contributions to patient safety from other staff groups. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study of routinely available data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 138 National Health Service hospital trusts that provided general acute adult services in England between 2015 and 2019. OUTCOME MEASURE: Standardised mortality rates were derived from the Summary Hospital level Mortality Indicator data set, with observed deaths as outcome in our models and expected deaths as offset. Staffing levels were calculated as the ratio of occupied beds per staff group. We developed negative binomial random-effects models with trust as random effects. RESULTS: Hospitals with lower levels of medical and allied healthcare professional (AHP) staff (e.g, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, radiography, speech and language therapy) had significantly higher mortality rates (rate ratio: 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06, and 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06, respectively), while those with lower support staff had lower mortality rates (0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91 for nurse support, and 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00 for AHP support). Estimates of the association between staffing levels and mortality were stronger between-hospitals than within-hospitals, which were not statistically significant in a within-between random effects model. CONCLUSIONS: In additional to medicine and nursing, AHP staffing levels may influence hospital mortality rates. Considering multiple staff groups simultaneously when examining the association between hospital mortality and clinical staffing levels is crucial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04374812.

The association between multi-disciplinary staffing levels and mortality in acute hospitals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Health systems worldwide are faced with the challenge of adequately staffing their hospital services. Much of the current research and subsequent policy has been focusing on nurse staffing and minimum ratios to ensure quality and safety of patient care. Nonetheless, nurses are not the only profession who interact with patients, and, therefore, not the only professional group who has the potential to influence the outcomes of patients while in hospital. We aimed to synthesise the evidence on the relationship between multi-disciplinary staffing levels in hospital including nursing, medical and allied health professionals and the risk of death. METHODS: Systematic review. We searched Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library for quantitative or mixed methods studies with a quantitative component exploring the association between multi-disciplinary hospital staffing levels and mortality. RESULTS: We included 12 studies. Hospitals with more physicians and registered nurses had lower mortality rates. Higher levels of nursing assistants were associated with higher patient mortality. Only two studies included other health professionals, providing scant evidence about their effect. CONCLUSIONS: Pathways for allied health professionals such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, pharmacists, to impact safety and other patient outcomes are plausible and should be explored in future studies.

A global overview of healthcare workers' turnover intention amid COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review with future directions.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the health workforce has long suffered from labour shortages. This has been exacerbated by the workload increase caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Major collapses in healthcare systems across the world during the peak of the pandemic led to calls for strategies to alleviate the increasing job attrition problem within the healthcare sector. This turnover may worsen given the overwhelming pressures experienced by the health workforce during the pandemic, and proactive measures should be taken to retain healthcare workers. This review aims to examine the factors affecting turnover intention among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A mixed studies systematic review was conducted. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2020 to March 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Tools and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 were applied by two independent researchers to critically appraise the methodological quality. Findings were synthesised using a convergent integrated approach and categorised thematically. RESULTS: Forty-three studies, including 39 quantitative, two qualitative and two mixed methods studies were included in this review. Eighteen were conducted in the Middle East, ten in the Americas, nine in the Asia-Pacific region and six in Europe. Nurses (n = 35) were included in the majority of the studies, while physicians (n = 13), allied health workers (n = 11) and healthcare administrative or management staff (n = 7) were included in a smaller proportion. Five themes emerged from the data synthesis: (1) fear of COVID-19 exposure, (2) psychological responses to stress, (3) socio-demographic characteristics, (4) adverse working conditions, and (5) organisational support. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of factors influence healthcare workers' turnover intention in times of pandemic. Future research should be more focused on specific factors, such as working conditions or burnout, and specific vulnerable groups, including migrant healthcare workers and healthcare profession minorities, to aid policymakers in adopting strategies to support and incentivise them to retain them in their healthcare jobs.

Using Polymer-Surfactant Charge Ratio to Control Synergistic Flocculation of Anionic Particulate Dispersions.

This study investigates the flocculation induced destabilization of particulate dispersions by oppositely charged polymer−surfactant complexes, with a particular focus on controlling interactions by modulating the charge ratio Z, (where Z = [+polymer]/[−surfactant]) via [−surfactant] at fixed Cpolymer. Cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose (cat-HEC) polymer-sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS) complexes were prepared with either excess polymer (Z > 1) or surfactant (Z < 1) charges. Anionic particulate dispersions (Ludox and polystyrene-butadiene Latex) were then exposed to the complexes, and solvent relaxation NMR was used to characterize the particle surfaces before and after exposure. In both particulate dispersions, flocculation induced destabilization was enhanced after exposure to cat-HEC-SDS complexes with Z > 1, leaving any excess particle surfaces uncoated after gentle centrifugation. However, complexes with Z < 1 showed no adsorption and destabilization in the Ludox dispersions and only slight destabilization in the Latex dispersions due to possible hydrophobic interactions. Substituting SDS for non-ionic surfactant (C12E6) showed no additional destabilization of the dispersions, but post-centrifugation relaxation rates indicated preferential adsorption of C12E6 onto the particle surfaces. Since the dominant forces are electrostatic, this study highlights the possibility of controlling the interactions between oppositely charged polymer−surfactant complexes and particle surfaces by modulating Z through [−surfactant].

Exploring the relationship between women's experience of postnatal care and reported staffing measures: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Women have reported dissatisfaction with care received on postnatal wards and this area has been highlighted for improvement. Studies have shown an association between midwifery staffing levels and postnatal care experiences, but so far, the influence of registered and support staff deployed in postnatal wards has not been studied. This work is timely as the number of support workers has increased in the workforce and there has been little research on skill mix to date. METHODS: Cross sectional secondary analysis including 13,264 women from 123 postnatal wards within 93 hospital Trusts. Staffing was measured in each organisation as Full Time Equivalent staff employed per 100 births, and on postnatal wards, using Hours Per Patient Day. Women's experiences were assessed using four items from the 2019 national maternity survey. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine relationships and adjust for maternal age, parity, ethnicity, type of birth, and medical staff. RESULTS: Trusts with higher levels of midwifery staffing had higher rates of women reporting positive experiences of postnatal care. However, looking at staffing on postnatal wards, there was no evidence of an association between registered nurses and midwives hours per patient day and patient experience. Wards with higher levels of support worker staffing were associated with higher rates of women reporting they had help when they needed it and were treated with kindness and understanding. CONCLUSION: The relationship between reported registered staffing levels on postnatal wards and women's experience is uncertain. Further work should be carried out to examine why relationships observed using whole Trust staffing were not replicated closer to the patient, with reported postnatal ward staffing. It is possible that recorded staffing levels on postnatal wards do not actually reflect staff deployment if midwives are floated to cover delivery units. This study highlights the potential contribution of support workers in providing quality care on postnatal wards.

Nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of registered nurses towards safe patient care has been demonstrated in many studies. However, most of the evidence linking staffing levels to outcomes is cross-sectional with intrinsic limitations including an inability to establish that presumed cause (staffing) precedes the effect. No reviews have summarised longitudinal studies considering nurse staffing and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the evidence for an association between nurse staffing levels, including the composition of the nursing team, and patient outcomes in acute care settings from longitudinal studies. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of studies where the association between nurse staffing with patient outcomes was assessed in a longitudinal design. Studies with repeated cross-sectional analyses were excluded unless a difference-in-difference design was used. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to February 2022. We used the ROBINS-I tool to assess risk of bias. We synthesised results in a tabular form and a narrative grouped by outcome. RESULTS: 27 papers were included. Studies were conducted in a variety of settings and populations, including adult general medical/surgical wards and adult and neonatal intensive care units. Staffing measures were operationalised in a variety of different ways, making direct comparisons between studies difficult and pooled estimates impossible. Most studies were either at serious (n = 12) or critical (n = 5) risk of bias, with only 3 studies at low risk of bias. Studies with the most risk of bias were judged as likely to underestimate the effect of higher registered nurse staffing. Findings are consistent with an overall picture of a beneficial effect from higher registered nurse staffing on preventing patient death. The evidence is less clear for other patient outcomes with a higher risk of bias, but in general the proposition that higher registered nurse staffing is likely to lead to better patient outcomes is supported. Evidence about the contribution of other nursing staff groups is unclear. CONCLUSION: The causal relationship between low registered nurse staffing and mortality is plausible and these estimates of relationships from longitudinal studies provide further support. To address residual uncertainties, future studies should be conducted in more than one hospital and using standardised measures when reporting staffing levels. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Having more registered nurses on hospital wards is causally linked to reduced mortality - new review shows there is little room for doubt @ora_dall @workforcesoton @turnel.

A workplace organisational intervention to improve hospital nurses' and physicians' mental health: study protocol for the Magnet4Europe wait list cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing burden of mental distress reported by healthcare professionals is a matter of serious concern and there is a growing recognition of the role of the workplace in creating this problem. Magnet hospitals, a model shown to attract and retain staff in US research, creates positive work environments that aim to support the well-being of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Magnet4Europe is a cluster randomised controlled trial, with wait list controls, designed to evaluate the effects of organisational redesign, based on the Magnet model, on nurses' and physicians' well-being in general acute care hospitals, using a multicomponent implementation strategy. The study will be conducted in more than 60 general acute care hospitals in Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. The primary outcome is burnout among nurses and physicians, assessed in longitudinal surveys of nurses and physicians at participating hospitals. Additional data will be collected from them on perceived work environments, patient safety and patient quality of care and will be triangulated with data from medical records, including case mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The process of implementation will be evaluated using qualitative data from focus group and key informant interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven, Belgium; additionally, ethics approval is obtained in all other participating countries either through a central or decentral authority. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, through peer-reviewed manuscripts and via social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10196901.

Correction: Nurses' experiences and preferences around shift patterns: A scoping review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256300.].

Because they're worth it? A discussion paper on the value of 12-h shifts for hospital nursing.

The organisation of the 24-h day for hospital nurses in two 12-h shifts has been introduced with value propositions of reduced staffing costs, better quality of care, more efficient work organisation, and increased nurse recruitment and retention. While existing reviews consider the impact of 12-h shifts on nurses' wellbeing and performance, this discussion paper aims to specifically shed light on whether the current evidence supports the value propositions around 12-h shifts. We found little evidence of the value propositions being realised. Staffing costs are not reduced with 12-h shifts, and outcomes related to productivity and efficiency, including sickness absence and missed nursing care are negatively affected. Nurses working 12-h shifts do not perform more safely than their counterparts working shorter shifts, with evidence pointing to a likely negative effect on safe care due to increased fatigue and sleepiness. In addition, nurses working 12-h shifts may have access to fewer educational opportunities than nurses working shorter shifts. Despite some nurses preferring 12-h shifts, the literature does not indicate that this shift pattern leads to increased recruitment, with studies reporting that nurses working long shifts are more likely to express intention to leave their job. In conclusion, there is little if any support for the value propositions that were advanced when 12-h shifts were introduced. While 12-h shifts might be here to stay, it is important that the limitations, including reduced productivity and efficiency, are recognised and accepted by those in charge of implementing schedules for hospital nurses.