Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, P
dc.contributor.authorSaville, C
dc.contributor.authorBall, J
dc.contributor.authorPattison, N
dc.contributor.authorMonks, T
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-06T09:35:10Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-15
dc.description.abstractObjectives The best way to determine nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards is unclear. This study explores the precision of estimates of nurse staffing requirements made using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) patient classification system for different sample sizes, and investigates whether recommended staff levels correspond with professional judgements of adequate staffing. Design Observational study linking datasets of staffing requirements (estimated using a tool) to professional judgements of adequate staffing. Multi-level logistic regression modelling. Setting 81 medical/surgical units in 4 acute care hospitals Participants 22,364 unit days where staffing levels and SNCT ratings were linked to nurse reports of staffing adequacy Primary outcome measures SNCT-estimated staffing requirements and nurses’ assessments of staffing adequacy. Results The recommended minimum sample of 20 days allowed the required number to employ (the establishment) to be estimated with a mean precision (defined as half 2 | P a g e 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Performance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool the width of the confidence interval as a percentage of the mean) of 4.1%. For most units, much larger samples were required to estimate establishments within +/- 1 whole-time-equivalent staff member. When staffing was lower than that required according to the SNCT, for each hour per patient day of registered nurse staffing below the required staffing level, the odds of nurses reporting that there were enough staff to provide quality care were reduced by 11%. Correspondingly, the odds of nurses reporting that necessary nursing care was left undone were increased by 14%. No threshold indicating an optimal staffing level was observed. Surgical specialty, patient turnover and more single rooms were associated with lower odds of staffing adequacy. Conclusions The SNCT can provide reliable estimates of the number of nurses to employ on a unit, but larger samples than the recommended minimum are usually required. The SNCT provides a measure of nursing workload that correlates with professional judgements, but the recommended staffing levels may not be optimal. Some important sources of systematic variations in staffing requirements for some units are not accounted for. SNCT measurements are a potentially useful adjunct to professional judgement, but cannot replace it.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 10, article e035828en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035828
dc.identifier.grantnumber14/194/21en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/120576
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.titlePerformance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool to measure nurse staffing requirements in acute hospitals: a multicentre observational studyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-04-06T09:35:10Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionAll data supporting this article are openly available from the University of Southampton repository at https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1134.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-03-30
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-03-30
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-04-04T11:48:23Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-08-07T15:00:54Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.