Background: Workforce studies often identify burnout as a nursing 'outcome'. Yet, burnout itself-what constitutes it, what factors contribute to its development, and what the wider consequences are for individuals, organisations, or their patients-is rarely made explicit. We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of research that examines theorised relationships between burnout and other variables, in order to determine what is known (and not known) about the causes and consequences of burnout in nursing, and how this relates to theories of burnout. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We included quantitative primary empirical studies (published in English) which examined associations between burnout and work-related factors in the nursing workforce. Results: Ninety-one papers were identified. The majority (n = 87) were cross-sectional studies; 39 studies used all three subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Scale to measure burnout. As hypothesised by Maslach, we identified high workload, value incongruence, low control over the job, low decision latitude, poor social climate/ social support, and low rewards as predictors of burnout. Maslach suggested that turnover, sickness absence, and general health were effects of burnout; however, we identified relationships only with general health and sickness absence. Other factors that were classified as predictors of burnout in the nursing literature were low/inadequate nurse staffing levels, ≥ 12-h shifts, low schedule flexibility, time pressure, high job and psychological demands, low task variety, role conflict, low autonomy, negative nurse-physician relationship, poor supervisor/leader support, poor leadership, negative team relationship, and job insecurity. Among the outcomes of burnout, we found reduced job performance, poor quality of care, poor patient safety, adverse events, patient negative experience, medication errors, infections, patient falls, and intention to leave. Conclusions: The patterns identified by these studies consistently show that adverse job characteristics-high workload, low staffing levels, long shifts, and low control-are associated with burnout in nursing. The potential consequences for staff and patients are severe. The literature on burnout in nursing partly supports Maslach's theory, but some areas are insufficiently tested, in particular, the association between burnout and turnover, and relationships were found for some MBI dimensions only.

AimsTo identify nursing care most frequently missed in acute adult inpatient wards and to determine evidence for the association of missed care with nurse staffing.BackgroundResearch has established associations between nurse staffing levels and adverse patient outcomes including in‐hospital mortality. However, the causal nature of this relationship is uncertain and omissions of nursing care (referred as missed care, care left undone or rationed care) have been proposed as a factor which may provide a more direct indicator of nurse staffing adequacy.DesignSystematic review.Data SourcesWe searched the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase and Medline for quantitative studies of associations between staffing and missed care. We searched key journals, personal libraries and reference lists of articles.Review MethodsTwo reviewers independently selected studies. Quality appraisal was based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist for studies reporting correlations and associations. Data were abstracted on study design, missed care prevalence and measures of association. Synthesis was narrative.ResultsEighteen studies gave subjective reports of missed care. Seventy‐five per cent or more nurses reported omitting some care. Fourteen studies found low nurse staffing levels were significantly associated with higher reports of missed care. There was little evidence that adding support workers to the team reduced missed care.ConclusionsLow Registered Nurse staffing is associated with reports of missed nursing care in hospitals. Missed care is a promising indicator of nurse staffing adequacy. The extent to which the relationships observed represent actual failures, is yet to be investigated.

Aims and objectivesSystematic review of the impact of missed nursing care on outcomes in adults, on acute hospital wards and in nursing homes.BackgroundA considerable body of evidence supports the hypothesis that lower levels of registered nurses on duty increase the likelihood of patients dying on hospital wards, and the risk of many aspects of care being either delayed or left undone (missed). However, the direct consequence of missed care remains unclear.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Scopus for studies examining the association of missed nursing care and at least one patient outcome. Studies regarding registered nurses, healthcare assistants/support workers/nurses’ aides were retained. Only adult settings were included. Because of the nature of the review, qualitative studies, editorials, letters and commentaries were excluded. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting the review.ResultsFourteen studies reported associations between missed care and patient outcomes. Some studies were secondary analyses of a large parent study. Most of the studies used nurse or patient reports to capture outcomes, with some using administrative data. Four studies found significantly decreased patient satisfaction associated with missed care. Seven studies reported associations with one or more patient outcomes including medication errors, urinary tract infections, patient falls, pressure ulcers, critical incidents, quality of care and patient readmissions. Three studies investigated whether there was a link between missed care and mortality and from these results no clear associations emerged.ConclusionsThe review shows the modest evidence base of studies exploring missed care and patient outcomes generated mostly from nurse and patient self‐reported data. To support the assertion that nurse staffing levels and skill mix are associated with adverse outcomes as a result of missed care, more research that uses objective staffing and outcome measures is required.Relevance to clinical practiceAlthough nurses may exercise judgements in rationing care in the face of pressure, there are nonetheless adverse consequences for patients (ranging from poor experience of care to increased risk of infection, readmissions and complications due to critical incidents from undetected physiological deterioration). Hospitals should pay attention to nurses’ reports of missed care and consider routine monitoring as a quality and safety indicator.

Objectives12 h shifts are becoming increasingly common for hospital nurses but there is concern that long shifts adversely affect nurses’ well-being, job satisfaction and intention to leave their job. The aim of this study is to examine the association between working long shifts and burnout, job dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction with work schedule flexibility and intention to leave current job among hospital nurses.MethodsCross-sectional survey of 31 627 registered nurses in 2170 general medical/surgical units within 488 hospitals across 12 European countries.ResultsNurses working shifts of ≥12 h were more likely than nurses working shorter hours (≤8) to experience burnout, in terms of emotional exhaustion (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.26; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46), depersonalisation (aOR=1.21; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.47) and low personal accomplishment (aOR=1.39; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.62). Nurses working shifts of ≥12 h were more likely to experience job dissatisfaction (aOR=1.40; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.62), dissatisfaction with work schedule flexibility (aOR=1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35) and report intention to leave their job due to dissatisfaction (aOR=1.29; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.48).ConclusionsLonger working hours for hospital nurses are associated with adverse outcomes for nurses. Some of these adverse outcomes, such as high burnout, may pose safety risks for patients as well as nurses.

ObjectiveTo determine the association between daily levels of registered nurse (RN) and nursing assistant staffing and hospital mortality.DesignThis is a retrospective longitudinal observational study using routinely collected data. We used multilevel/hierarchical mixed-effects regression models to explore the association between patient outcomes and daily variation in RN and nursing assistant staffing, measured as hours per patient per day relative to ward mean. Analyses were controlled for ward and patient risk.Participants138 133 adult patients spending >1 days on general wards between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2015.OutcomesIn-hospital deaths.ResultsHospital mortality was 4.1%. The hazard of death was increased by 3% for every day a patient experienced RN staffing below ward mean (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). Relative to ward mean, each additional hour of RN care available over the first 5 days of a patient’s stay was associated with 3% reduction in the hazard of death (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.0). Days where admissions per RN exceeded 125% of the ward mean were associated with an increased hazard of death (aHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 1.09). Although low nursing assistant staffing was associated with increases in mortality, high nursing assistant staffing was also associated with increased mortality.ConclusionLower RN staffing and higher levels of admissions per RN are associated with increased risk of death during an admission to hospital. These findings highlight the possible consequences of reduced nurse staffing and do not give support to policies that encourage the use of nursing assistants to compensate for shortages of RNs.

What is already known? A number of high quality reviews establish an association between lower registered nurse staffing levels, increased mortality rates and other adverse outcomes  Careful analysis of this evidence suggests that it is consistent with a causal relationship  Translation of this evidence into practice is disputedWhat this paper adds  This paper summarises and extends a recent systematic review on nurse staffing and outcomes undertaken for England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence  Methodological limitations mean that existing studies may not give unbiased estimates of the benefits from increased nurse staffing, with over and underestimation of benefit both possible, which makes it difficult to directly translate evidence into guidance for practice. We identify avenues for progressing this important research so that future studies might be better able to provide the evidence needed to inform policy and practice, and provide a checklist to aid future study development AbstractA large and increasing number of studies have reported a relationship between low nurse staffing levels and adverse outcomes, including higher mortality rates. Despite the evidence being extensive in size, and having been sometimes described as "compelling" and "overwhelming", there are limitations that existing studies have not yet been able to address. One result of these weaknesses can be observed in the guidelines on safe staffing in acute hospital wards issued by the influential body that sets standards for the National Health Service in England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which concluded there is insufficient good quality evidence available to fully inform practice.In this paper we explore this apparent contradiction. After summarising the evidence review that informed the NICE guideline on safe staffing and related evidence, we move on to discussing the complex challenges that arise when attempting to apply this evidence to practice. Among these, we introduce the concept of endogeneity, a form of bias in the estimation of causal effects. Although current evidence is broadly consistent with a cause and effect relationship, endogeneity means that estimates of the size of effect, essential for building an economic case, may be biased and in some cases qualitatively wrong. We expand on three limitations that are likely to lead to endogeneity in many previous studies: omitted variables, which refers to the absence of control for variables such as medical staffing and patient case mix; simultaneity, which occurs when the outcome can influence the level of staffing just as staffing influences outcome; and common-method variance, which may be present when both outcomes and staffing levels variables are derived from the same survey.Thus while current evidence is important and has influenced policy because it illustrates the potential risks and benefits associated with changes in nurse staffing, it may not provide operational solutions. We conclude by posing a ser...

This review highlighted the complexity that encompasses shift work, but many studies do not account for this complexity. While some consistent associations emerge (e.g. 12h shifts and jeopardised outcomes), it is not always possible to conclude that results are not confounded by unmeasured factors.

Background:Despite concerns as to whether nurses can perform reliably and effectively when working longer shifts, a pattern of two 12- to 13-hour shifts per day is becoming common in many hospitals to reduce shift to shift handovers, staffing overlap, and hence costs.Objectives:To describe shift patterns of European nurses and investigate whether shift length and working beyond contracted hours (overtime) is associated with nurse-reported care quality, safety, and care left undone.Methods:Cross-sectional survey of 31,627 registered nurses in general medical/surgical units within 488 hospitals across 12 European countries.Results:A total of 50% of nurses worked shifts of ≤8 hours, but 15% worked ≥12 hours. Typical shift length varied between countries and within some countries. Nurses working for ≥12 hours were more likely to report poor or failing patient safety [odds ratio (OR)=1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–1.76], poor/fair quality of care (OR=1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.53), and more care activities left undone (RR=1.13; 95% CI, 1.09–1.16). Working overtime was also associated with reports of poor or failing patient safety (OR=1.67; 95% CI, 1.51–1.86), poor/fair quality of care (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.23–1.42), and more care left undone (RR=1.29; 95% CI, 1.27–1.31).Conclusions:European registered nurses working shifts of ≥12 hours and those working overtime report lower quality and safety and more care left undone. Policies to adopt a 12-hour nursing shift pattern should proceed with caution. Use of overtime working to mitigate staffing shortages or increase flexibility may also incur additional risk to quality.