IntroductionEfforts to enact nurse staffing legislation often lack timely, local evidence about how specific policies could directly impact the public’s health. Despite numerous studies indicating better staffing is associated with more favourable patient outcomes, only one US state (California) sets patient-to-nurse staffing standards. To inform staffing legislation actively under consideration in two other US states (New York, Illinois), we sought to determine whether staffing varies across hospitals and the consequences for patient outcomes. Coincidentally, data collection occurred just prior to the COVID-19 outbreak; thus, these data also provide a real-time example of the public health implications of chronic hospital nurse understaffing.MethodsSurvey data from nurses and patients in 254 hospitals in New York and Illinois between December 2019 and February 2020 document associations of nurse staffing with care quality, patient experiences and nurse burnout.ResultsMean staffing in medical-surgical units varied from 3.3 to 9.7 patients per nurse, with the worst mean staffing in New York City. Over half the nurses in both states experienced high burnout. Half gave their hospitals unfavourable safety grades and two-thirds would not definitely recommend their hospitals. One-third of patients rated their hospitals less than excellent and would not definitely recommend it to others. After adjusting for confounding factors, each additional patient per nurse increased odds of nurses and per cent of patients giving unfavourable reports; ORs ranged from 1.15 to 1.52 for nurses on medical-surgical units and from 1.32 to 3.63 for nurses on intensive care units.ConclusionsHospital nurses were burned out and working in understaffed conditions in the weeks prior to the first wave of COVID-19 cases, posing risks to the public’s health. Such risks could be addressed by safe nurse staffing policies currently under consideration.

Introduction Threats to quality and patient safety may exist when necessary nursing care is omitted. Empirical research is needed to determine how missed nursing care is associated with patient outcomes. Aim The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between missed nursing care and hospital readmissions. Methods Cross-sectional examination, using three linked data sources—(1) nurse survey, (2) patient discharge data from three states (California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) and (3) administrative hospital data— from 2005 to 2006. We explored the incidence of 30-day readmission for 160 930 patients with heart failure in 419 acute care hospitals in the USA. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of missed care on the odds of readmission, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Results The most frequently missed nursing care activities across all hospitals in our sample included talking to and comforting patients (42.0%), developing and updating care plans (35.8%) and educating patients and families (31.5%). For 4 of the 10 studied care activities, each 10 percentage-point increase in the number of nurses reporting having missed the activity was associated with an increase in the odds of readmission by 2–8% after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. However, missed nursing care was no longer a significant predictor of readmission once adjusting for the nurse work environment, except in the case of the delivery of treatments and procedures (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.14). Conclusions Missed care is an independent predictor of heart failure readmissions. However, once adjusting for the quality of the nurse work environment, this relationship is attenuated. Improvements in nurses’ working conditions may be one strategy to reduce care omissions and improve patient outcomes.

Background: Rigorous measurement of organizational performance requires large, unbiased samples to allow inferences to the population. Studies of organizations, including hospitals, often rely on voluntary surveys subject to nonresponse bias. For example, hospital administrators with concerns about performance are more likely to opt-out of surveys about organizational quality and safety, which is problematic for generating inferences. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe a novel approach to obtaining a representative sample of organizations using individuals nested within organizations, and demonstrate how resurveying nonrespondents can allay concerns about bias from low response rates at the individual-level. Methods: We review and analyze common ways of surveying hospitals. We describe the approach and results of a double-sampling technique of surveying nurses as informants about hospital quality and performance. Finally, we provide recommendations for sampling and survey methods to increase response rates and evaluate whether and to what extent bias exists. Results: The survey of nurses yielded data on over 95% of hospitals in the sampling frame. Although the nurse response rate was 26%, comparisons of nurses’ responses in the main survey and those of resurveyed nonrespondents, which yielded nearly a 90% response rate, revealed no statistically significant differences at the nurse-level, suggesting no evidence of nonresponse bias. Conclusions: Surveying organizations via random sampling of front-line providers can avoid the self-selection issues caused by directly sampling organizations. Response rates are commonly misinterpreted as a measure of representativeness; however, findings from the double-sampling approach show how low response rates merely increase the potential for nonresponse bias but do not confirm it.

Readmission outcomes following major joint replacement are associated with hospital nursing care. Attention to nurse work conditions may be central to improving readmissions in this postoperative Medicare population.

ImportanceDisruptions in the hospital clinical workforce threaten quality and safety of care and retention of health professionals. It is important to understand which interventions would be well received by clinicians to address the factors associated with turnover.ObjectivesTo determine well-being and turnover rates of physicians and nurses in hospital practice, and to identify actionable factors associated with adverse clinician outcomes, patient safety, and clinicians’ preferences for interventions.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a cross-sectional multicenter survey study conducted in 2021 with 21 050 physicians and nurses at 60 nationally distributed US Magnet hospitals. Respondents described their mental health and well-being, associations between modifiable work environment factors and physician and nurse burnout, mental health, hospital staff turnover, and patient safety. Data were analyzed from February 21, 2022, to March 28, 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClinician outcomes (burnout, job dissatisfaction, intent to leave, turnover), well-being (depression, anxiety, work-life balance, health), patient safety, resources and work environment adequacy, and clinicians’ preferences for interventions to improve their well-being.ResultsThe study sample comprised responses from 15 738 nurses (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.7] years; 10 887 (69%) women; 8404 [53%] White individuals) practicing in 60 hospitals, and 5312 physicians (mean [SD] age, 44.7 [12.0] years; 2362 [45%] men; 2768 [52%] White individuals) practicing in 53 of the same hospitals, with an average of 100 physicians and 262 nurses per hospital and an overall clinician response rate of 26%. High burnout was common among hospital physicians (32%) and nurses (47%). Nurse burnout was associated with higher turnover of both nurses and physicians. Many physicians (12%) and nurses (26%) rated their hospitals unfavorably on patient safety, reported having too few nurses (28% and 54%, respectively), reported having a poor work environment (20% and 34%, respectively), and lacked confidence in management (42% and 46%, respectively). Fewer than 10% of clinicians described their workplace as joyful. Both physicians and nurses rated management interventions to improve care delivery as more important to their mental health and well-being than interventions directed at improving clinicians’ mental health. Improving nurse staffing was ranked highest among interventions (87% of nurses and 45% of physicians).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cross-sectional survey study of physicians and nurses practicing in US Magnet hospitals found that hospitals characterized as having too few nurses and unfavorable work environments had higher rates of clinician burnout, turnover, and unfavorable patient safety ratings. Clinicians wanted action by management to address insufficient nurse staffing, insufficient clinician control over workload, and poor work environments; they were less interested in wellness programs and resilience training.