RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool to measure nurse staffing requirements in acute hospitals: a multi-centre observational study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19011320
DO 10.1101/19011320
A1 Peter Griffiths
A1 Christina Saville
A1 Jane E Ball
A1 David Culliford
A1 Natalie Pattison
A1 Thomas Monks
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/08/19011320.abstract
AB Objectives To determine the precision of nurse staffing establishments estimated using the SNCT patient classification system, and to assess whether the recommended staff levels correspond with professional judgements of adequate staffing.Setting / population 81 medical/surgical units in 4 acute care hospitals.Methods Nurses assessed patients using the SNCT and reported on the adequacy of staffing at least daily for one year. Bootstrap samples of varying sizes were used to estimate the precision of the tool’s recommendations for the number of nurses to employ on each unit. Multi-level regression models were used to assess the association between shortfalls from the measured staffing requirement and nurses’ assessments of adequate staffing.Results The recommended minimum sample of 20 days allowed the required number to employ to be estimated with a mean precision of 4.1%. For most units, much larger samples were required to estimate establishments within +/- 1 whole time staff member. Every registered nurse hour per patient day shortfall in staffing was associated with an 11% decrease in the odds of nurses reporting that there were enough staff to provide quality care and a 14% increase in the odds of reporting that necessary nursing care was left undone. No threshold indicating an optimal staffing level was observed. Surgical specialty, patient turnover and more single bedded rooms were associated with lower odds of staffing adequacy.Conclusions The SNCT can provide reliable estimates of the number of nurses to employ on a unit, but larger samples than the recommended minimum are usually required. The SNCT provides a measure of nursing workload that correlates with professional judgements, but the recommended staffing levels may not be optimal. Some sources of systematic variations in staffing requirements for some units are not accounted for. SNCT measurements are a potentially useful adjunct to professional judgement, but cannot replace it.Competing Interest StatementPeter Griffiths is a member of the National Health Service Improvement (NHSI) safe staffing faculty steering group. He receives no remuneration for this role. The safe staffing faculty programme is intended to ensure that knowledge of the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT), its development and its operational application is consistently applied across the NHS. Thre are no other competing interests.Clinical TrialISRCTN12307968Clinical Protocols https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2007867 Funding StatementThis report presents independent research funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme number 14/194/21. JEB, & NP PG & TM were award holders. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the PHR programme or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAuthors are in the process of preparing data for sharing in a publically accessible archive and will do so provided data sharing agreements permit. This entry will be updated to reflect the changes. In the meantime contact the authors.