; and the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience (AYA HOPE) Study Collaborative Group BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of cancer on newly diagnosed adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. METHODS: This was a population-based, multicenter study of 523 newly diagnosed AYA survivors (ages 15-39 years) of germ cell cancer (n ¼ 204), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n ¼ 131), Hodgkin lymphoma (n ¼ 142), acute lymphocytic leukemia (n ¼ 21), or sarcoma (n ¼ 25) from 7 National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries. Age at diagnosis was categorized into 3 groups (ages 15-20 years, 21-29 years, and 30-39 years). RESULTS: Respondents (43% response rate), on average (AEstandard deviation), were aged 29 ¼ 6.7 years, and most patients (80.1%) were not receiving treatment at the time the completed the survey. With modest differences between the age groups, the most prevalent areas of life impacted in a negative way were financial, body image, control over life, work plans, relationship with spouse/significant other, and plans for having children. Endorsement of positive life impact items also was evident across the 3 age groups, particularly with regard to relationships, future plans/goals, and health competence. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that there will be future need for interventions targeting financial assistance, body image issues, relationships, and helping AYAs to attain their education objectives.

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.

Background and objectivesThere is little strong evidence relating to the impact of single-room accommodation on healthcare quality and safety. We explore the impact of all single rooms on staff and patient experience; safety outcomes; and costs.MethodsMixed methods pre/post ‘move’ comparison within four nested case study wards in a single acute hospital with 100% single rooms; quasi-experimental before-and-after study with two control hospitals; analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms.ResultsTwo-thirds of patients expressed a preference for single rooms with comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages (sense of isolation) felt by some. Patients appreciated privacy, confidentiality and flexibility for visitors afforded by single rooms. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but single rooms were worse for visibility, surveillance, teamwork, monitoring and keeping patients safe. Staff walking distances increased significantly post move. A temporary increase of falls and medication errors in one ward was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms per se. We found no evidence that single rooms reduced infection rates. Building an all single-room hospital can cost 5% more with higher housekeeping and cleaning costs but the difference is marginal over time.ConclusionsStaff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt unprepared for new ways of working with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms.

BackgroundAdverse events (AEs) seriously affect patient safety and quality of care, and remain a pressing global issue.This study had three objectives: (1) to describe the proportions of patients affected by in-hospital AEs; (2) to explore the types and consequences of observed AEs; and (3) to estimate the preventability of in-hospital AEs.MethodsWe applied a scoping review method and concluded a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and CINAHL in May 2017 and in February 2018. Our target was retrospective medical record review studies applying the Harvard method–or similar methods using screening criteria–conducted in acute care hospital settings on adult patients (≥18 years).ResultsWe included a total of 25 studies conducted in 27 countries across six continents. Overall, a median of 10% patients were affected by at least one AE (range: 2.9–21.9%), with a median of 7.3% (range: 0.6–30%) of AEs being fatal. Between 34.3 and 83% of AEs were considered preventable (median: 51.2%). The three most common types of AEs reported in the included studies were operative/surgical related, medication or drug/fluid related, and healthcare-associated infections.ConclusionsEvidence regarding the occurrence of AEs confirms earlier estimates that a tenth of inpatient stays include adverse events, half of which are preventable. However, the incidence of in-hospital AEs varied considerably across studies, indicating methodological and contextual variations regarding this type of retrospective chart review across health care systems. For the future, automated methods for identifying AE using electronic health records have the potential to overcome various methodological issues and biases related to retrospective medical record review studies and to provide accurate data on their occurrence.

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...

Objectives The purpose of this study was to provide normative data on fall prevalence in US hospitals by unit type and to determine the 27-month secular trend in falls prior to the implementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) rule which does not reimburse hospitals for care related to injury resulting from hospital falls. Methods We used data from the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI) collected between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2008 to estimate prevalence and secular trends of falls occurring in adult medical, medical-surgical and surgical nursing units. More than 88 million patient days (pd) of observation were contributed from 6,100 medical, surgical, and medical-surgical nursing units in 1,263 hospitals across the United States. Results A total of 315,817 falls occurred (rate=3.56 falls/1,000 pd) during the study period, of which 82,332 (26.1%) resulted in an injury (rate=0.93/1,000 pd). Both total fall and injurious fall rates were highest in medical units (fall rate=4.03/1,000 pd; injurious fall rate=1.08/1,000 pd) and lowest in surgery units (fall rate=2.76/1,000 pd; injurious fall rate=0.67/1,000 pd). Falls (0.4% decrease/quarter, p<0.0001) and injurious falls (1% decrease per quarter, p<0.0001) both decreased over the 27-month study. Conclusions In this large sample, fall and injurious fall prevalence varied by nursing unit type in US hospitals. Over the 27 month study, there was a small, but statistically significant, decrease in falls (p<0.0001) and injurious falls (p<0.0001).

BackgroundNew hospital design includes more single room accommodation but there is scant and ambiguous evidence relating to the impact on patient safety and staff and patient experiences.ObjectivesTo explore the impact of the move to a newly built acute hospital with all single rooms on care delivery, working practices, staff and patient experience, safety outcomes and costs.Design(1) Mixed-methods study to inform a pre-/post-‘move’ comparison within a single hospital, (2) quasi-experimental study in two control hospitals and (3) analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms.SettingFour nested case study wards [postnatal, acute admissions unit (AAU), general surgery and older people’s] within a new hospital with all single rooms. Matched wards in two control hospitals formed the comparator group.Data sourcesTwenty-one stakeholder interviews; 250 hours of observation, 24 staff interviews, 32 patient interviews, staff survey (n = 55) and staff pedometer data (n = 56) in the four case study wards; routinely collected data at ward level in the control hospitals (e.g. infection rates) and costs associated with hospital design (e.g. cleaning and staffing) in the new hospital.Results(1) There was no significant change to the proportion of time spent by nursing staff on different activities. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but thought the new accommodation worse for visibility and surveillance, teamwork, monitoring, safeguarding and remaining close to patients. Giving sufficient time and attention to each patient, locating other staff and discussing care with colleagues proved difficult. Two-thirds of patients expressed a clear preference for single rooms, with the benefits of comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages. Some patients experienced care as task-driven and functional, and interaction with other patients was absent, leading to a sense of isolation. Staff walking distances increased significantly after the move. (2) A temporary increase in falls and medication errors within the AAU was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms, although staff perceived the loss of panoptic surveillance as the key to increases in falls. Because of the fall in infection rates nationally and the low incidence at our study site and comparator hospitals, it is difficult to conclude from our data that it is the ‘single room’ factor that prevents infection. (3) Building an all single room hospital can cost 5% more but the difference is marginal over time. Housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher.ConclusionsThe nature of tasks undertaken by nurses did not change, but staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt ill prepared for the new ways of working, with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms. There was no strong evidence that single rooms had any impact on patient safety but housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher. In terms of future work, patient experience and preferences in hospitals with different proportions of single rooms/designs need to be explored with a larger patient sample. The long-term impact of single room working on the nature of teamwork and informal learning and on clinical/care outcomes should also be explored.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract