No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background In the face of pressure to contain costs and make best use of scarce nurses, flexible staff deployment (floating staff between units and temporary hires) guided by a patient classification system may appear an efficient approach to meeting variable demand for care in hospitals. Objectives We modelled the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to planning baseline numbers of nurses to roster on general medical/surgical units while using flexible staff to respond to fluctuating demand. Design and setting We developed an agent-based simulation, where hospital inpatient units move between being understaffed, adequately staffed or overstaffed as staff supply and demand (as measured by the Safer Nursing Care Tool patient classification system) varies. Staffing shortfalls are addressed by floating staff from overstaffed units or hiring temporary staff. We compared a standard staffing plan (baseline rosters set to match average demand) with a higher baseline ‘resilient’ plan set to match higher than average demand, and a low baseline ‘flexible’ plan. We varied assumptions about temporary staff availability and estimated the effect of unresolved low staffing on length of stay and death, calculating cost per life saved. Results Staffing plans with higher baseline rosters led to higher costs but improved outcomes. Cost savings from lower baseline staff mainly arose because shifts were left understaffed and much of the staff cost saving was offset by costs from longer patient stays. With limited temporary staff available, changing from low baseline flexible plan to the standard plan cost £13,117 per life saved and changing from the standard plan to the higher baseline ‘resilient’ plan cost £8,653 per life saved. Although adverse outcomes from low baseline staffing reduced when more temporary staff were available, higher baselines were even more cost-effective because the saving on staff costs also reduced. With unlimited temporary staff, changing from low baseline plan to the standard cost £4,520 per life saved and changing from the standard plan to the higher baseline cost £3,693 per life saved. Conclusion S hift-by-shift measurement of patient demand can guide flexible staff deployment, but the baseline number of staff rostered must be sufficient. Higher baseline rosters are more resilient in the face of variation and appear cost-effective. Staffing plans that minimise the number of nurses rostered in advance are likely to harm patients because temporary staff may not be available at short notice. Such plans, which rely heavily on flexible deployments, do not represent an efficient or effective use of nurses. Study registration: ISRCTN 12307968 Tweetable abstract: Economic simulation model of hospital units shows low baseline staff levels with high use of flexible staff are not cost-effective and don't solve n...

Background The 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. Objectives To 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. Design This 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. Setting Medical/surgical wards in four NHS hospital trusts. Main outcome measures The 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 sources The data sources were hospital administrative systems, staff reports and national reference costs. Results In 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. Limitations This was an observational study. Outcomes of staffing establishments are simulated. Conclusions Understanding 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 work Research 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 registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307968. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Therapy perception is that pre-discharge home assessment visits are increasing in number, complexity and involvement of professional time despite little evidence for their effectiveness. Controlled trials are required to assess which patients are likely to benefit.

BackgroundPlanning numbers of nursing staff allocated to each hospital ward (the ‘staffing establishment’) is challenging because both demand for and supply of staff vary. Having low numbers of registered nurses working on a shift is associated with worse quality of care and adverse patient outcomes, including higher risk of patient safety incidents. Most nurse staffing tools recommend setting staffing levels at the average needed but modelling studies suggest that this may not lead to optimal levels.ObjectiveUsing computer simulation to estimate the costs and understaffing/overstaffing rates delivered/caused by different approaches to setting staffing establishments.MethodsWe used patient and roster data from 81 inpatient wards in four English hospital Trusts to develop a simulation of nurse staffing. Outcome measures were understaffed/overstaffed patient shifts and the cost per patient-day. We compared staffing establishments based on average demand with higher and lower baseline levels, using an evidence-based tool to assess daily demand and to guide flexible staff redeployments and temporary staffing hires to make up any shortfalls.ResultsWhen baseline staffing was set to meet the average demand, 32% of patient shifts were understaffed by more than 15% after redeployment and hiring from a limited pool of temporary staff. Higher baseline staffing reduced understaffing rates to 21% of patient shifts. Flexible staffing reduced both overstaffing and understaffing but when used with low staffing establishments, the risk of critical understaffing was high, unless temporary staff were unlimited, which was associated with high costs.ConclusionWhile it is common practice to base staffing establishments on average demand, our results suggest that this may lead to more understaffing than setting establishments at higher levels. Flexible staffing, while an important adjunct to the baseline staffing, was most effective at avoiding understaffing when high numbers of permanent staff were employed. Low staffing establishments with flexible staffing saved money because shifts were unfilled rather than due to efficiencies. Thus, employing low numbers of permanent staff (and relying on temporary staff and redeployments) risks quality of care and patient safety.

Cancer is a disease affecting increasing numbers of people. In the UK, the proportion of people affected by cancer is projected to increase from 1 in 3 in 1992, to nearly 1 in 2 by 2020. Health services to tackle cancer can be grouped broadly into prevention, diagnosis, staging, and treatment. We review examples of Operational Research (OR) papers addressing decisions encountered in each of these areas. In conclusion, we find many examples of OR research on screening strategies, as well as on treatment planning and scheduling. On the other hand, our search strategy uncovered comparatively few examples of OR models applied to reducing cancer risks, optimising diagnostic procedures, and staging. Improvements to cancer care services have been made as a result of successful OR modelling. There is potential for closer working with clinicians to enable the impact of other OR studies to be of greater benefit to cancer sufferers. ARTICLE HISTORY