Search

This study determined the relationship between the emergency nurse work environment and emergency department patient left without being seen rates and lengths of stay. Cross-sectional analysis of 215 New York and Illinois emergency departments. The work environment (abbreviated Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index) was measured by emergency nurses in the 2021 RN4CAST-NY/IL survey and linked with outcomes from Hospital Compare. Regression models estimated the relationship between the nurse work environment and emergency department patient left without being seen rates, median length of stay (in minutes), and median behavioral health patient length of stay. Model coefficients were used to estimate expected additional care minutes gained if emergency department work environments improved. "Mixed" work environments had the longest median overall length of stay (3.4 hours) and the highest median left without being seen rates (2.2%), while "poor" work environments had the longest median length of stay for behavioral health patients (6 hours). Improving the emergency department work environment from poor to mixed (and mixed to better) was associated with a 13-minute reduction in overall length of stay (P ≤.05), a 33-minute reduction in behavioral health length of stay (P ≤.01), and a 19% reduction in left without being seen rates (P ≤.01). We estimated 11,824 to 41,071 additional patients could be seen in emergency departments associated with work environment improvements from "poor" to "better," depending on annual patient volumes. Hospital administrators should consider investing in nurse work environments as a foundation to improve timely outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programs aim to improve hospital care through financial incentives for care quality and patient outcomes. Magnet® recognition—a potential pathway for improving nurse work environments—is associated with better patient outcomes and P4P program scores, but whether these indicators of higher quality are substantial enough to avoid penalties and thereby impact hospital reimbursements is unknown. This cross-sectional study used a national sample of 2,860 hospitals to examine the relationship between hospital Magnet® status and P4P penalties under P4P programs: Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program, Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program. Magnet® hospitals were matched 1:1 with non-Magnet hospitals accounting for 13 organizational characteristics including hospital size and location. Post-match logistic regression models were used to compute a hospital's odds of penalties. In a national sample of hospitals, 77% of hospitals experienced P4P penalties. Magnet® hospitals were less likely to be penalized in the VBP program compared to their matched non-Magnet counterparts (40% vs. 48%). Magnet® status was associated with 30% lower odds of VBP penalties relative to non-Magnet hospitals. Lower P4P program penalties is one benefit associated with achieving Magnet® status or otherwise maintaining high-quality nurse work environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Efforts to enact nurse staffing legislation often lack timely, local evidence about how specific policies could directly impact the public's health. Despite numerous studies indicating better staffing is associated with more favourable patient outcomes, only one US state (California) sets patient-to-nurse staffing standards. To inform staffing legislation actively under consideration in two other US states (New York, Illinois), we sought to determine whether staffing varies across hospitals and the consequences for patient outcomes. Coincidentally, data collection occurred just prior to the COVID-19 outbreak; thus, these data also provide a real-time example of the public health implications of chronic hospital nurse understaffing. Methods Survey data from nurses and patients in 254 hospitals in New York and Illinois between December 2019 and February 2020 document associations of nurse staffing with care quality, patient experiences and nurse burnout. Results Mean staffing in medical-surgical units varied from 3.3 to 9.7 patients per nurse, with the worst mean staffing in New York City. Over half the nurses in both states experienced high burnout. Half gave their hospitals unfavourable safety grades and two-thirds would not definitely recommend their hospitals. Onethird of patients rated their hospitals less than excellent and would not definitely recommend it to others. After adjusting for confounding factors, each additional patient per nurse increased odds of nurses and per cent of patients giving unfavourable reports; ORs ranged from 1.15 to 1.52 for nurses on medical-surgical units and from 1.32 to 3.63 for nurses on intensive care units. Conclusions Hospital nurses were burned out and working in understaffed conditions in the weeks prior to the first wave of COVID-19 cases, posing risks to the public's health. Such risks could be addressed by safe nurse staffing policies currently under consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To evaluate differences in hospitals' proportion of specialty certified nurses and to determine whether and to what extent individual nurse characteristics and organisational hospital characteristics are associated with a nurse's likelihood of having specialty certification. Background: Prior research has shown that patients in hospitals with high proportions of specialty certified nurses have better outcomes including lower mortality and fewer adverse events, yet less is known about what motivates nurses to obtain specialty certification. Methods and design: Cross‐sectional study of paediatric nurses in 119 acute care hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the association between individual nurse characteristics, organisational hospital characteristics and an individual nurses' likelihood of holding a specialty certification. STROBE was followed. Results: The proportion of certified nurses varies substantially among hospitals, with Magnet® hospitals being significantly more likely, on average, to have higher proportions of certified nurses. Nurses in children's hospitals were no more likely than paediatric nurses in general hospitals to be certified. A nurse's years of experience and bachelors‐preparation were significantly associated with higher odds of having certification. The strongest predictors of certification were favourable nurse work environments and Magnet®‐designation of the hospital. Conclusions: While individual attributes of the nurse were associated with a nurse's likelihood of having a specialty certification, the strongest predictors of certification were modifiable attributes of the hospital—a favourable nurse work environment and Magnet®‐designation. Relevance to clinical practice: Hospital administrators seeking to increase the proportion of specialty certified nurses in their organisation should look to improvements in the organisation's nurse work environment as a possible mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There are known clinical benefits associated with investments in nursing. Less is known about their value. Aims To compare surgical patient outcomes and costs in hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources and to determine if value differs across these hospitals for patients with different mortality risks. Methods Retrospective matched-cohort design of patient outcomes at hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources, defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses and nurse work environments. The sample included 62 715 pairs of surgical patients in 76 better nursing resourced hospitals and 230 worse nursing resourced hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Patients were exactly matched on principal procedures and their hospital's size category, teaching and technology status, and were closely matched on comorbidities and other risk factors. Results Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had lower 30-day mortality: 2.7% vs 3.1% (p<0.001), lower failure-to-rescue: 5.4% vs 6.2% (p<0.001), lower readmissions: 12.6% vs 13.5% (p<0.001), shorter lengths of stay: 4.70 days vs 4.76 days (p<0.001), more intensive care unit admissions: 17.2% vs 15.4% (p<0.001) and marginally higher nurse- adjusted costs (which account for the costs of better nursing resources): $20 096 vs $19 358 (p<0.001), as compared with patients in worse nursing resourced hospitals. The nurse- adjusted cost associated with a 1% improvement in mortality at better nursing hospitals was $2035. Patients with the highest mortality risk realised the greatest value from nursing resources. Conclusion Hospitals with better nursing resources provided better clinical outcomes for surgical patients at a small additional cost. Generally, the sicker the patient, the greater the value at better nursing resourced hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study we describe nurse–physician teamwork, estimate its association with surgical patient outcomes (30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue), and determine whether these relationships depend upon other modifiable hospital nursing characteristics (nurse staffing and education levels) known to be associated with patient outcomes. This cross-sectional analysis included linked data from 29,391 nurses representing 665 acute care hospitals and 1,321,904 adult patients who underwent a general surgical, vascular, or orthopedic procedure. Surgical patients cared for in hospitals with better nurse–physician teamwork had significantly lower odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95) and failure-to-rescue (OR = 0.95). In addition, the odds of death and failure-to-rescue were lower for patients in hospitals with both higher nurse–physician teamwork and more favorable patient-to-nurse staffing ratios. Similar trends were observed related to nursing education levels. Improving interprofessional teamwork is one strategy to improve patient outcomes with the added importance of also considering additional features of their nursing workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well-established that hospitals recognized for good nursing care -- Magnet hospitals -- are associated with better patient outcomes. Less is known about how Magnet hospitals compare to non-Magnets on quality measures linked to Medicare reimbursement. The purpose of this study was to determine how Magnet hospitals perform compared to matched non- Magnet hospitals on Hospital Value Based Purchasing (VBP) measures. A cross-sectional analysis of three linked data sources was performed. The sample included 3,021 non-federal acute care hospitals participating in the VBP program (323 Magnets; 2,698 non-Magnets). Propensity score matching was used to match Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals with similar hospital characteristics. After matching, linear and logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between Magnet status and VBP performance. After matching and adjusting for hospital characteristics. Magnet recognition predicted higher scores on Total Performance (Regression Coefficient [RC] = 1.66, p< 0.05), Clinical Processes (RC = 3.85; p <0.01), and Patient Experience (RC = 6.33; p < 0.001). The relationships between Magnet recognition and the Outcome and Efficiency domains were not statistically significant. Magnet hospitals known for nursing excellence perform better on Hospital VBP measures. As healthcare systems adapt to evolving incentives that reward value, attention to nurses at the frontlines may be central to ensuring high-value care for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]