Summary Background Austerity measures and health-system redesign to minimise hospital expenditures risk adversely affecting patient outcomes. The RN4CAST study was designed to inform decision making about nursing, one of the largest components of hospital operating expenses. We aimed to assess whether differences in patient to nurse ratios and nurses’ educational qualifications in nine of the 12 RN4CAST countries with similar patient discharge data were associated with variation in hospital mortality after common surgical procedures. Methods For this observational study, we obtained discharge data for 422 730 patients aged 50 years or older who underwent common surgeries in 300 hospitals in nine European countries. Administrative data were coded with a standard protocol (variants of the ninth or tenth versions of the International Classification of Diseases) to estimate 30 day in-hospital mortality by use of risk adjustment measures including age, sex, admission type, 43 dummy variables suggesting surgery type, and 17 dummy variables suggesting comorbidities present at admission. Surveys of 26 516 nurses practising in study hospitals were used to measure nurse staffing and nurse education. We used generalised estimating equations to assess the effects of nursing factors on the likelihood of surgical patients dying within 30 days of admission, before and after adjusting for other hospital and patient characteristics. Findings An increase in a nurses’ workload by one patient increased the likelihood of an inpatient dying within 30 days of admission by 7% (odds ratio 1·068, 95% CI 1·031–1·106), and every 10% increase in bachelor’s degree nurses was associated with a decrease in this likelihood by 7% (0·929, 0·886–0·973). These associations imply that patients in hospitals in which 60% of nurses had bachelor’s degrees and nurses cared for an average of six patients would have almost 30% lower mortality than patients in hospitals in which only 30% of nurses had bachelor’s degrees and nurses cared for an average of eight patients. Interpretation Nurse staffing cuts to save money might adversely affect patient outcomes. An increased emphasis on bachelor’s education for nurses could reduce preventable hospital deaths. Funding European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, the Norwegian Nurses Organisation and the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Swedish Association of Health Professionals, the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, Committee for Health and Caring Sciences and Strategic Research Program in Care Sciences at Karolinska Institutet, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Job dissatisfaction among nurses contributes to costly labor disputes, turnover, and risk to patients. Examining survey data from 95,499 nurses, we found much higher job dissatisfaction and burnout among nurses who were directly caring for patients in hospitals and nursing homes than among nurses working in other jobs or settings, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Strikingly, nurses are particularly dissatisfied with their health benefits, which highlights the need for a benefits review to make nurses’ benefits more comparable to those of other white-collar employees. Patient satisfaction levels are lower in hospitals with more nurses who are dissatisfied or burned out—a finding that signals problems with quality of care. Improving nurses’ working conditions may improve both nurses’ and patients’ satisfaction as well as the quality of care.

ObjectivesTo determine the association of hospital nursing skill mix with patient mortality, patient ratings of their care and indicators of quality of care.DesignCross-sectional patient discharge data, hospital characteristics and nurse and patient survey data were merged and analysed using generalised estimating equations (GEE) and logistic regression models.SettingAdult acute care hospitals in Belgium, England, Finland, Ireland, Spain and Switzerland.ParticipantsSurvey data were collected from 13 077 nurses in 243 hospitals, and 18 828 patients in 182 of the same hospitals in the six countries. Discharge data were obtained for 275 519 surgical patients in 188 of these hospitals.Main outcome measuresPatient mortality, patient ratings of care, care quality, patient safety, adverse events and nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction.ResultsRicher nurse skill mix (eg, every 10-point increase in the percentage of professional nurses among all nursing personnel) was associated with lower odds of mortality (OR=0.89), lower odds of low hospital ratings from patients (OR=0.90) and lower odds of reports of poor quality (OR=0.89), poor safety grades (OR=0.85) and other poor outcomes (0.80

Patient satisfaction is receiving greater attention as a result of the rise in pay-for-performance (P4P) and the public release of data from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. This paper examines the relationship between nursing and patient satisfaction across 430 hospitals. The nurse work environment was significantly related to all HCAHPS patient satisfaction measures. Additionally, patient-to-nurse workloads were significantly associated with patients’ ratings and recommendation of the hospital to others, and with their satisfaction with the receipt of discharge information. Improving nurses’ work environments, including nurse staffing, may improve the patient experience and quality of care.

Background Although there is evidence that hospitals recognized for nursing excellence— Magnet hospitals—are successful in attracting and retaining nurses, it is uncertain whether Magnet recognition is associated with better patient outcomes than non-Magnets, and if so why. Objectives To determine whether Magnet hospitals have lower risk-adjusted mortality and failure-to-rescue compared to non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the most likely explanations. Method and Study Design Analysis of linked patient, nurse, and hospital data on 56 Magnet and 508 non-Magnet hospitals. Logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in the odds of mortality and failure-to-rescue for surgical patients treated in Magnet vs. non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the extent to which differences in outcomes can be explained by nursing after accounting for patient and hospital differences. Results Magnet hospitals had significantly better work environments and higher proportions of nurses with bachelor’s degrees and specialty certification. These nursing factors explained much of the Magnet hospital effect on patient outcomes. However, patients treated in Magnet hospitals had 14% lower odds of mortality (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.98, p=0.02) and 12% lower odds of failure-to-rescue (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.01, p=0.07) while controlling for nursing factors as well as hospital and patient differences. Conclusions Magnet hospitals have lower mortality than is fully accounted for by measured characteristics of nursing. Magnet recognition likely both identifies existing quality and stimulates further positive organizational behavior that improves patient outcomes.

Summary Continuous treatments (e.g., doses) arise often in practice, but many available causal effect estimators are limited by either requiring parametric models for the effect curve, or by not allowing doubly robust covariate adjustment. We develop a novel kernel smoothing approach that requires only mild smoothness assumptions on the effect curve, and still allows for misspecification of either the treatment density or outcome regression. We derive asymptotic properties and give a procedure for data-driven bandwidth selection. The methods are illustrated via simulation and in a study of the effect of nurse staffing on hospital readmissions penalties.

The important goals of Magnet® hospitals are to create supportive professional nursing care environments. A recently published paper found little difference in work environments between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether work environments, staffing, and nurse outcomes differ between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. A secondary analysis of data from a 4-state survey of 26,276 nurses in 567 acute care hospitals to evaluate differences in work environments and nurse outcomes in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals was conducted. Magnet hospitals had significantly better work environments (t = −5.29, P < .001) and more highly educated nurses (t = −2.27, P < .001). Magnet hospital nurses were 18% less likely to be dissatisfied with their job (P < .05) and 13% less likely to report high burnout (P < .05). Magnet hospitals have significantly better work environments than non-Magnet hospitals. The better work environments of Magnet hospitals are associated with lower levels of nurse job dissatisfaction and burnout.

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.