Search

BACKGROUND: The nurse work environment is theorized to influence the quality of nursing care, nurse job outcomes, and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate quantitatively the association of the work environment with job and health outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Relevant studies published through September 2018 were identified. Inclusion criteria were use of a nationally endorsed work environment measure and reporting of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals from regression models of 4 outcome classes: nurse job outcomes, safety and quality ratings, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Pooled ORs and confidence intervals were estimated for each outcome using fixed or random effects models. SUBJECTS: Of 308 articles reviewed, 40 met inclusion criteria. After excluding 23 due to sample overlap or too few observations to meta-analyze, a set of 17 articles, comprising 21 independent samples, was analyzed. Cumulatively, these articles reported data from 2677 hospitals, 141 nursing units, 165,024 nurses, and 1,368,420 patients, in 22 countries. MEASURES: Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, a National Quality Forum nursing care performance standard. RESULTS: Consistent, significant associations between the work environment and all outcome classes were identified. Better work environments were associated with lower odds of negative nurse outcomes (average OR of 0.71), poor safety or quality ratings (average OR of 0.65), and negative patient outcomes (average OR of 0.93), but higher odds of patient satisfaction (OR of 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: The nurse work environment warrants attention to promote health care quality, safety, and patient and clinician wellbeing.

The objective of this study was to investigate the associations between the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) work environment, quality of care, safety, and patient outcomes. A secondary analysis was conducted of responses of 1247 NICU staff nurses in 171 hospitals to a large nurse survey. Better work environments were associated with lower odds of nurses reporting poor quality, safety, and outcomes. Improving the work environment may be a promising strategy to achieve safer settings for at-risk newborns.

Background While improvements in nursing practice environments are considered essential to address the nursing shortage, relatively little is known about the nursing practice environments in most hospitals. Objectives The objectives of this study are to describe variations in nursing practice environments across hospitals and to examine their associations to hospital bed size, community size, teaching intensity, and nurse staffing levels. Methods The research design was cross-sectional analyses of nurse survey and administrative data for 156 Pennsylvania hospitals from 1999. For comparative reference, nurse survey data from earlier years from two small samples of nursing magnet hospitals were analyzed. The nursing practice environment was measured by the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI). Results Nursing practice environments varied greatly among the hospitals studied. The nursing practice environments of the small samples of magnet hospitals were superior to those of the Pennsylvania sample. About 17% of the hospitals in the Pennsylvania sample had favorable practice environments. Pennsylvania hospitals with better practice environments had higher RN-to-bed ratios. Practice environment differences were not associated with hospital bed size or community size. Hospitals with a modest teaching level had less favorable environments. Discussion Considerable variation exists in the quality of hospital nursing practice environments. Five out of six hospitals are targets for improvement. Favorable nursing practice environments can be achieved in a wide variety of hospital settings.

Objectives. The rapidly changing organizational context within which health care is delivered is altering provider-patient relations and processes of clinical decision-making, with significant implications for patient outcomes. Yet definitive research on such effects is lacking. The authors seek to underscore the contribution of organizational research to studies of clinical outcomes and demonstrates several approaches to further such efforts. Methods. The authors present a theoretical framework of the operant mechanisms linking organizational attributes and patient outcomes. They use case examples from their ongoing research on hospitals to illustrate strategies for measuring these mechanisms and for overcoming some of the feasibility issues inherent in organizational research. Results. Several methodological issues are explored: (1) exploiting "targets of opportunity" and "natural experiments" is a promising strategy for studying patient outcomes related to organizational reform; (2) indices of organizational traits, constructed from individual survey responses, can illuminate the operant mechanisms by which structure affects outcomes; and (3) secondary data sources and innovative statistical matching procedures provide a feasible strategy for constructing study comparison groups. Extending the organizational outcomes research strategy to new areas of inquiry offers an opportunity to enhance our understanding of how nursing organization affects outcomes. Conclusions. Improving the effectiveness of medical care in a health-care system undergoing fundamental restructuring requires greater understanding of how organizational context affects clinical outcomes. A higher priority should be placed on organizational outcomes research by researchers and funding agencies.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine whether there were differences in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients' satisfaction with inpatient nursing care on dedicated AIDS units compared with conventional, multidiagnosis medical units. METHODS Interview data were collected from more than 600 consecutive AIDS admissions in 40 patient care units in 20 hospitals in 11 high AIDS incidence cities. Ten hospitals with dedicated AIDS units were matched with comparable hospitals treating AIDS patients on multidiagnosis medical units. AIDS patients' satisfaction with nursing care on dedicated AIDS units was compared with AIDS patients' satisfaction with care on scattered-bed units in the same hospital and with AIDS patients' satisfaction on scattered-bed units in different, matched hospitals without dedicated units. Interhospital differences that were not controlled by design were controlled statistically, as were differences in patient characteristics and illness severity. RESULTS Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients receiving care on dedicated AIDS units were significantly more satisfied with their nursing care. In hospitals with units of both types, dedicated AIDS units had a higher proportion of white patients, men, and homosexuals, whereas scattered-bed units had more minority patients and intravenous drug users. Controlling for these factors as well as for differences in illness severity and interhospital differences in patient satisfaction did not diminish the positive AIDS unit effect on patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS Dedicated AIDS units achieve higher levels of satisfaction among patients with AIDS than general medical units. There is no evidence that patients feel isolated or stigmatized on dedicated AIDS units compared with patients on general units, and many patients have a clear preference for dedicated units.