The relationship between quality and staffing in long-term care: A systematic review of the literature 2008-2020.

Background: Higher staffing levels in long-term care have been associated with better outcomes for residents in several landmark studies. However previous systematic reviews found mixed results, calling into question the effectiveness of higher levels of staff. With persistent concerns about quality, rising resident acuity, and a growing demographic of seniors requiring more services, understanding the relationship between quality and long-term care staffing is a growing concern.
Objectives: This review considered the following question: What is the influence of nursing and personal care staffing levels (registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and nursing assistant) and / or skill mix on long-term care residents, measured by quality of care indicators?
Design: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols guided the report of this systematic review.
Data Sources: Published articles focused on quality and nursing and personal care staffing in long-term care in peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and AGELINE) and several Cochrane databases to retrieve studies published between January 2008 and June 2020.
Review Methods: A systematic review was conducted. 11,096 studies were identified, of which 34 were included in this review. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was used to evaluate study quality and risk of bias, and five quality measures were selected for in-depth analyses: pressure ulcers, hospitalizations, physical restraints, deficiencies and catherization.
Results: This review confirms previous review findings that evidence on the relationships between quality and long-term care staffing level and skill mix, remain mixed. Higher staffing levels and skill mix generally supported better rather than worse outcomes. Significant and consistent findings were more evident when staffing levels were further analyzed by indicator and staffing category. For example, registered nurses were consistently associated with significantly fewer pressure ulcers, hospitalizations, and urinary tract infections. Few studies examined the impact of total nursing and personal care hours compared to the impact of specific categories or classes of nursing staff on outcomes.
Conclusions: Evidence on the relationship between quality and long-term care staffing remains mixed, however some categories of nursing staff may be more effective at improving the quality of certain indicators. Study quality has improved minimally over the last decade. Although research continues to standardize units of measurement, and longitudinal and instrumental variable analyses are increasingly being used, very few studies controlled for endogeneity, conducted adequate risk-adjustment, and used resident-level data. Additional strides must still be made to improve the rigor of long-term care staffing research.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)