Extended work shifts of twelve hours or longer are common and even popular with hospital staff nurses, but little is known about how such extended hours affect the care that patients receive or the well-being of nurses. Survey data from nurses in four states showed that more than 80 percent of the nurses were satisfied with scheduling practices at their hospital. However, as the proportion of hospital nurses working shifts of more than thirteen hours increased, patients’ dissatisfaction with care increased. Furthermore, nurses working shifts of ten hours or longer were up to two and a half times more likely than nurses working shorter shifts to experience burnout and job dissatisfaction and to intend to leave the job. Extended shifts undermine nurses’ well-being, may result in expensive job turnover, and can negatively affect patient care. Policies regulating work hours for nurses, similar to those set for resident physicians, may be warranted. Nursing leaders should also encourage workplace cultures that respect nurses’ days off and vacation time, promote nurses’ prompt departure at the end of a shift, and allow nurses to refuse to work overtime without retribution.

As the primary providers of round-the-clock bedside care, nurses are well positioned to report on hospital quality of care. Researchers have not examined how nurses’ reports of quality correspond with standard process or outcomes measures of quality. We assess the validity of evaluating hospital quality by aggregating hospital nurses’ responses to a single item that asks them to report on quality of care. We found that a 10% increment in the proportion of nurses reporting excellent quality of care was associated with lower odds of mortality and failure to rescue; greater patient satisfaction; and higher composite process of care scores for acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and surgical patients. Nurse reported quality of care is a useful indicator of hospital performance.

Background Research has documented an association between Magnet hospitals and better outcomes for nurses and patients. However, little longitudinal evidence exists to support a causal link between Magnet recognition and outcomes. Objective To compare changes over time in surgical patient outcomes, nurse-reported quality, and nurse outcomes in a sample of hospitals that attained Magnet recognition between 1999 and 2007 with hospitals that remained non-Magnet. Research Design Retrospective, two-stage panel design using four secondary data sources. Subjects 136 Pennsylvania hospitals (11 “emerging” Magnets and 125 non-Magnets) Measures American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet recognition; risk-adjusted rates of surgical 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue, nurse-reported quality measures, and nurse outcomes; the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index Methods Fixed effects difference models were used to compare changes in outcomes between emerging Magnet hospitals and hospitals that remained non-Magnet. Results Emerging Magnet hospitals demonstrated markedly greater improvements in their work environments than other hospitals. On average, the changes in 30-day surgical mortality and failure-to-rescue rates over the study period were more pronounced in emerging Magnet hospitals than in non-Magnet hospitals, by 2.4 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (p<.01) and 6.1 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (p=0.02), respectively. Similar differences in the changes for emerging Magnet hospitals and non-Magnet hospitals were observed in nurse-reported quality of care and nurse outcomes. Conclusions In general, Magnet recognition is associated with significant improvements over time in the quality of the work environment, and in patient and nurse outcomes that exceed those of non-Magnet hospitals.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze hospital staff nurses’ shift length, scheduling characteristics, and nurse reported safety and quality. A secondary analysis of a large nurse survey linked with hospital administrative data was conducted. More than 22 000 registered nurses’ reports of shift length and scheduling characteristics were examined. Extended shift lengths were associated with higher odds of reporting poor quality and safety. Policies aimed at reducing the use of extended shifts may be advisable.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between Magnet Recognition® and nurse-reported quality of care. BACKGROUND Magnet® hospitals are recognized for nursing excellence and quality patient outcomes; however, few studies have explored contributing factors for these superior outcomes. METHODS This was a secondary analysis of linked nurse survey data, hospital administrative data, and a listing of American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet hospitals. Multivariate regressions were modeled before and after propensity score matching to assess the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care. A mediation model assessed the indirect effect of the professional practice environment on quality of care. RESULTS Nurse-reported quality of care was significantly associated with Magnet Recognition after matching. The professional practice environment mediates the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care. CONCLUSION A prominent feature of Magnet hospitals, a professional practice environment that is supportive of nursing, plays a role in explaining why Magnet hospitals have better nurse-reported quality of care.

Magnet recognition is associated with better patient care experiences, which may positively enhance reimbursement for hospitals.