Search

Aims and objectives: To examine the association between registered nurses' (referred to as "nurses" for brevity) shifts of 12 hr or more and presence of continuing educational programmes; ability to discuss patient care with other nurses; assignments that foster continuity of care; and patient care information being lost during handovers. Background: The introduction of long shifts (i.e., shifts of 12 hr or more) remains controversial. While there are claims of efficiency, studies have shown long shifts to be associated with adverse effects on quality of care. Efficiency claims are predicated on the assumption that long shifts reduce overlaps between shifts; these overlaps are believed to be unproductive and dangerous. However, there are potentially valuable educational and communication activities that occur during these overlaps. Design: Cross‐sectional survey of 31,627 nurses within 487 hospitals in 12 European countries. Methods: The associations were measured through generalised linear mixed models. The study methods were compliant with the STROBE checklist. Results: When nurses worked shifts of 12 hr or more, they were less likely to report having continuing educational programmes; and time to discuss patient care with other nurses, compared to nurses working 8 hr or less. Nurses working shifts of 12 hr or more were less likely to report assignments that foster continuity of care, albeit the association was not significant. Similarly, working long shifts was associated with reports of patient care information being lost during handovers, although association was not significant. Conclusion: Working shifts of 12 hr or more is associated with reduced educational activities and fewer opportunities to discuss patient care, with potential negative consequences for safe and effective care. Relevance to clinical practice: Implementation of long shifts should be questioned, as reduced opportunity to discuss care or participate in educational activities may jeopardise the quality and safety of care for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variation in post-operative mortality rates has been associated with differences in registered nurse staffing levels. When nurse staffing levels are lower there is also a higher incidence of necessary but missed nursing care. Missed nursing care may be a significant predictor of patient mortality following surgery., Aim: Examine if missed nursing care mediates the observed association between nurse staffing levels and mortality., Method: Data from the RN4CAST study (2009-2011) combined routinely collected data on 422,730 surgical patients from 300 general acute hospitals in 9 countries, with survey data from 26,516 registered nurses, to examine associations between nurses' staffing, missed care and 30-day in-patient mortality. Staffing and missed care measures were derived from the nurse survey. A generalized estimation approach was used to examine the relationship between first staffing, and then missed care, on mortality. Bayesian methods were used to test for mediation., Results: Nurse staffing and missed nursing care were significantly associated with 30-day case-mix adjusted mortality. An increase in a nurse's workload by one patient and a 10% increase in the percent of missed nursing care were associated with a 7% (OR 1.068, 95% CI 1.031-1.106) and 16% (OR 1.159 95% CI 1.039-1.294) increase in the odds of a patient dying within 30days of admission respectively. Mediation analysis shows an association between nurse staffing and missed care and a subsequent association between missed care and mortality., Conclusion: Missed nursing care, which is highly related to nurse staffing, is associated with increased odds of patients dying in hospital following common surgical procedures. The analyses support the hypothesis that missed nursing care mediates the relationship between registered nurse staffing and risk of patient mortality. Measuring missed care may provide an 'early warning' indicator of higher risk for poor patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)