The Safer Nursing Care Tool as a guide to nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards: observational and modelling study

Author:

Griffiths Peter12ORCID,Saville Christina1ORCID,Ball Jane E12ORCID,Chable Rosemary3ORCID,Dimech Andrew4ORCID,Jones Jeremy1ORCID,Jeffrey Yvonne5ORCID,Pattison Natalie46ORCID,Saucedo Alejandra Recio1ORCID,Sinden Nicola7ORCID,Monks Thomas12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

2. National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

3. Training, Development & Workforce, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

4. Clinical Services, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

5. Nursing & Patient Services, Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK

6. School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

7. Nursing Directorate, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK

Abstract

BackgroundThe Safer Nursing Care Tool is a system designed to guide decisions about nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards, in particular the number of nurses to employ (establishment). The Safer Nursing Care Tool is widely used in English hospitals but there is a lack of evidence about how effective and cost-effective nurse staffing tools are at providing the staffing levels needed for safe and quality patient care.ObjectivesTo determine whether or not the Safer Nursing Care Tool corresponds to professional judgement, to assess a range of options for using the Safer Nursing Care Tool and to model the costs and consequences of various ward staffing policies based on Safer Nursing Care Tool acuity/dependency measure.DesignThis was an observational study on medical/surgical wards in four NHS hospital trusts using regression, computer simulations and economic modelling. We compared the effects and costs of a ‘high’ establishment (set to meet demand on 90% of days), the ‘standard’ (mean-based) establishment and a ‘flexible (low)’ establishment (80% of the mean) providing a core staff group that would be sufficient on days of low demand, with flexible staff re-deployed/hired to meet fluctuations in demand.SettingMedical/surgical wards in four NHS hospital trusts.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were professional judgement of staffing adequacy and reports of omissions in care, shifts staffed more than 15% below the measured requirement, cost per patient-day and cost per life saved.Data sourcesThe data sources were hospital administrative systems, staff reports and national reference costs.ResultsIn total, 81 wards participated (85% response rate), with data linking Safer Nursing Care Tool ratings and staffing levels for 26,362 wards × days (96% response rate). According to Safer Nursing Care Tool measures, 26% of all ward-days were understaffed by ≥ 15%. Nurses reported that they had enough staff to provide quality care on 78% of shifts. When using the Safer Nursing Care Tool to set establishments, on average 60 days of observation would be needed for a 95% confidence interval spanning 1 whole-time equivalent either side of the mean. Staffing levels below the daily requirement estimated using the Safer Nursing Care Tool were associated with lower odds of nurses reporting ‘enough staff for quality’ and more reports of missed nursing care. However, the relationship was effectively linear, with staffing above the recommended level associated with further improvements. In simulation experiments, ‘flexible (low)’ establishments led to high rates of understaffing and adverse outcomes, even when temporary staff were readily available. Cost savings were small when high temporary staff availability was assumed. ‘High’ establishments were associated with substantial reductions in understaffing and improved outcomes but higher costs, although, under most assumptions, the cost per life saved was considerably less than £30,000.LimitationsThis was an observational study. Outcomes of staffing establishments are simulated.ConclusionsUnderstanding the effect on wards of variability of workload is important when planning staffing levels. The Safer Nursing Care Tool correlates with professional judgement but does not identify optimal staffing levels. Employing more permanent staff than recommended by the Safer Nursing Care Tool guidelines, meeting demand most days, could be cost-effective. Apparent cost savings from ‘flexible (low)’ establishments are achieved largely by below-adequate staffing. Cost savings are eroded under the conditions of high temporary staff availability that are required to make such policies function.Future workResearch is needed to identify cut-off points for required staffing. Prospective studies measuring patient outcomes and comparing the results of different systems are feasible.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307968.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Reference162 articles.

1. NHS Improvement. Performance of the NHS Provider Sector for the Quarter Ended 30 September 2018. London: NHS Improvement; 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/3520/Performance_of_the_NHS_provider_sector_for_the_month_ended_30_Sept_18_FINAL.pdf (accessed 25 February 2020).

2. Nurse staffing and patient outcomes: strengths and limitations of the evidence to inform policy and practice. A review and discussion paper based on evidence reviewed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Safe Staffing guideline development;Griffiths;Int J Nurs Stud,2016

3. Nurse–patient ratios as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review;Shekelle;Ann Intern Med,2013

4. The association of registered nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis;Kane;Med Care,2007

5. The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review;Griffiths;J Adv Nurs,2018

Cited by 20 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3