Search

To identify the patient classification systems used to classify nursing intensity in the assessment of nursing staffing resources currently used in home health care, with a special emphasis on validity, reliability and staff allocation. Scoping review of internationally published and grey literature, based on a methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Searches of the electronic databases Cinahl, Medline, Embase and SweMed, the websites Google and Google Scholar and hand searches of reference lists occurred. Eligibility criteria included (A) a focus on patient classification systems measuring nursing intensity and workload in home health care and (B) published in English between January 2007 and March 2019. In level one testing two team members screened titles and abstracts, in level two testing two team members determined which papers should undergo a full text review. Data were extracted using structured extraction by one team member and verified by two other members. Thirteen peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents were identified, from Canada, Ireland, the UK, the USA, Scotland, Turkey and the Netherlands. Four patient classification systems had been tested for both validity and reliability. Validity was tested through face validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity or content validity index. Reliability was tested through stability, internal consistency, observer agreement or inter rater reliability. One patient classification system had been tested only for reliability, through interrater reliability and observer agreement. Two patient classification systems had been evaluated through summative evaluation; one qualitatively through focus group interviews and one through semi-structured interviews. Only one patient classification system had been validity and reliability tested and evaluated. Overall, the patient classification systems in the included papers (13) were considered to have benefits and to be appropriate for the measurement of patients' needs, workload and allocation of staff, although specific information was not always given. Little has been published on validity or reliability tested patient classification systems linked to staffing allocation in home health care in the past decade. Limited research was seen where a patient classification system was considered to be fully operational in home health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States (US) spends more on health care than any other high‐resource country. Despite this, their maternal and newborn outcomes are worse than all other countries with similar levels of economic development. Our purpose was to describe maternal and newborn outcomes and organization of care in four high‐resource countries (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) with consistently better outcomes and lower health care costs, and to identify opportunities for emulation and improvement in the United States. Method: We examined resources that described health care organization and financing, provider types, birth settings, national, clinical guidelines, health care policies, surveillance data, and information for consumers. We conducted interviews with country stakeholders representing the disciplines of obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, neonatology, epidemiology, sociology, political science, public health, and health services. The results of the analysis were compared and contrasted with the US maternity system. Results: The four countries had lower rates of maternal mortality, low birthweight, and newborn and infant death than the United States. Five commonalities were identified as follows: (1) affordable/ accessible health care, (2) a maternity workforce that emphasized midwifery care and interprofessional collaboration, (3) respectful care and maternal autonomy, (4) evidence‐based guidelines on place of birth, and (5) national data collections systems. Conclusions: The findings reveal marked differences in the other countries compared to the United States. It is critical to consider the evidence for improved maternal and newborn outcomes with different models of care and to examine US cultural and structural failures that are leading to unacceptable and substandard maternal and infant outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]