Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28614165›Full record

ArticleHealth care management review

Magnet hospital recognition in hospital systems over time.

Karen B Lasater, Michael R Richards, Nikila B Dandapani, Lawton R Burns, Matthew D McHugh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management review. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karen B LasaterKaren B. Lasater, PhD, RN, is Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. E-mail: karenbl@upenn.edu. Michael R. Richards, MD, PhD, MPH, is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Nikila B. Dandapani, BA, is Research Assistant, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Lawton R. Burns, PhD, MBA, is Professor and Director, Wharton Center for Health Management and Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Matthew D. McHugh, PhD, JD, RN, MPH, CRNP, FAAN, is Associate Professor and Associate Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Michael R Richards
Nikila B Dandapani
Lawton R Burns
Matthew D McHugh

Funding

ADVANCED TRAINING IN NURSING OUTCOMES RESEARCHT32NR007104 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI JACQUELINE MARGO BROOKS CARTHON, EILEEN T LAKE · 1999 to 2026
$11.6M
NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnet hospitals are recognized for nursing excellence and high-value patient outcomes, yet little is known about which and when hospitals pursue Magnet recognition. Concurrently, hospital systems are becoming a more prominent feature of the U.S. health care landscape. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine Magnet adoption among hospital systems over time. APPROACH: Using American Hospital Association surveys (1998-2012), we characterized the proportion of Magnet hospitals belonging to systems. We used hospital level fixed-effects regressions to capture changes in a given system hospital's Magnet status over time in relation to a variety of conditions, including prior Magnet adoption by system affiliates and nonaffiliates in local and geographically distant markets and whether these relationships varied by degree of system centralization.

resultsThe proportion of Magnet hospitals belonging to a system is increasing. Prior Magnet adoption by a hospital within the local market was associated with an increased likelihood of a given system hospital becoming Magnet, but the effect was larger if there was prior adoption by affiliates (7.4% higher likelihood) versus nonaffiliates (2.7% higher likelihood). Prior adoption by affiliates and nonaffiliates in geographically distant markets had a lesser effect. Hospitals belonging to centralized systems were more reactive to Magnet adoption of nonaffiliate hospitals as compared with those in decentralized systems.

conclusionsHospital systems take an organizational perspective toward Magnet adoption, whereby more system affiliates achieve Magnet recognition over time. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings are relevant to health care and nursing administrators and policymakers interested in the diffusion of an empirically supported organizational innovation associated with quality outcomes, particularly in a time of increasing hospital consolidation and system expansion. We identify factors associated with Magnet adoption across system hospitals and demonstrate the importance of considering diffusion of organizational innovations in relation to system centralization. We suggest that decentralized system hospitals may be missing potential benefits of such organizational innovations.

Indexed as

Organizational InnovationSafety-net ProvidersAmerican Hospital AssociationHealth Services AdministrationHumansNursing Staff, HospitalQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28614165
PMCPMC5729072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.