9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear.

          Objective

          To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources.

          Design

          Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals.

          Patients

          A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status.

          Main Measures

          Better ( n = 76) and worse ( n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs.

          Key Results

          Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost.

          Conclusions

          Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06151-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lower Medicare mortality among a set of hospitals known for good nursing care.

          The objective of this study is to investigate whether hospitals known to be good places to practice nursing have lower Medicare mortality than hospitals that are otherwise similar with respect to a variety of non-nursing organizational characteristics. Research to date on determinants of hospital mortality has not focused on the organization of nursing. We capitalize on the existence of a set of studies of 39 hospitals that, for reasons other than patient outcomes, have been singled out as hospitals known for good nursing care. We match these "magnet" hospitals with 195 control hospitals, selected from all nonmagnet U.S. hospitals with over 100 Medicare discharges, using a multivariate matched sampling procedure that controls for hospital characteristics. Medicare mortality rates of magnet versus control hospitals are compared using variance components models, which pool information on the five matches per magnet hospital, and adjust for differences in patient composition as measured by predicted mortality. The magnet hospitals' observed mortality rates are 7.7% lower (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 Medicare discharges) than the matched control hospitals (P = .011). After adjusting for differences in predicted mortality, the magnet hospitals have a 4.6% lower mortality rate (P = .026 [95% confidence interval 0.9 to 9.4 fewer deaths per 1,000]). The same factors that lead hospitals to be identified as effective from the standpoint of the organization of nursing care are associated with lower mortality among Medicare patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The nursing practice environment: measurement and evidence.

            Improvements in nurses' practice environments are essential to retain nurses and keep patients safe. The pace of improvements can accelerate if evidence is translated clearly for researchers, managers, and policymakers. This article evaluates the utility of published multidimensional instruments to measure the nursing practice environment. The assessment criteria are theoretical relevance, ease of use, and dissemination. This article also synthesizes the research that has used these instruments. Seven instruments and 54 studies are evaluated. The Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) is proposed as the most useful instrument. Its content, length, and dissemination best satisfy the set of criteria. Researchers should use the PES-NWI to generate consistent and comparable evidence; expand the content to reflect all conceptual domains; develop a short form; test the instrument in different care settings; expand the evidence of the practice environment's influence on patient outcomes; and test interventions for practice environment improvements.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Changes in patient and nurse outcomes associated with magnet hospital recognition.

              Research has documented an association between Magnet hospitals and better outcomes for nurses and patients. However, little longitudinal evidence exists to support a causal link between Magnet recognition and outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                karenbl@nursing.upenn.edu
                Journal
                J Gen Intern Med
                J Gen Intern Med
                Journal of General Internal Medicine
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0884-8734
                1525-1497
                31 August 2020
                : 1-8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Population Studies Center, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.239552.a, ISNI 0000 0001 0680 8770, Center for Outcomes Research, , Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, The Departments of Pediatrics, , University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, , University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Department of Health Care Management, The Wharton School, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-1954
                Article
                6151
                10.1007/s11606-020-06151-z
                7458128
                32869196
                3f10347b-79c9-4923-9b94-b34301b82036
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2020

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 24 July 2020
                : 12 August 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Nursing Research
                Award ID: NR016019
                Award ID: NR016019
                Award ID: NR014855
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Original Research

                Internal medicine
                health services research,nursing,quality of care
                Internal medicine
                health services research, nursing, quality of care

                Comments

                Comment on this article