Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29326193›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2018

Patient satisfaction with hospital care and nurses in England: an observational study.

Linda H Aiken, Douglas M Sloane, Jane Ball, Luk Bruyneel, Anne Marie Rafferty, Peter Griffiths

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

116 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Optimizing hospice care: A scoping review of staffing strategies to enhance practice.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Linda H AikenSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Douglas M SloaneSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jane BallFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Luk BruyneelUniversity of Leuven, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, Belgium.
Anne Marie RaffertyFlorence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Peter GriffithsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

The Impact of Changes in Nursing Systems and Models of Care on Patient Outcomes: A Panel StudyR01NR014855 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Matthew D. McHugh · 2014 to 2026
$7.5M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR014855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo inform healthcare workforce policy decisions by showing how patient perceptions of hospital care are associated with confidence in nurses and doctors, nurse staffing levels and hospital work environments.

designCross-sectional surveys of 66 348 hospital patients and 2963 inpatient nurses.

settingPatients surveyed were discharged in 2010 from 161 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. Inpatient nurses were surveyed in 2010 in a sample of 46 hospitals in 31 of the same 161 trusts.

participantsThe 2010 NHS Survey of Inpatients obtained information from 50% of all patients discharged between June and August. The 2010 RN4CAST England Nurse Survey gathered information from inpatient medical and surgical nurses.

main outcome measuresPatient ratings of their hospital care, their confidence in nurses and doctors and other indicators of their satisfaction. Missed nursing care was treated as both an outcome measure and explanatory factor.

resultsPatients' perceptions of care are significantly eroded by lack of confidence in either nurses or doctors, and by increases in missed nursing care. The average number of types of missed care was negatively related to six of the eight outcomes-ORs ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.90) for excellent care ratings to 0.86 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.95) for medications completely explained-positively associated with higher patient-to-nurse ratios (b=0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19), and negatively associated with better work environments (b=-0.26, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.04).

conclusionsPatients' perceptions of hospital care are strongly associated with missed nursing care, which in turn is related to poor professional nurse (RN) staffing and poor hospital work environments. Improving RN staffing in NHS hospitals holds promise for enhancing patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Medical-Surgical NursingBurnout, ProfessionalCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansLogistic ModelsNurse-Patient RelationsNursing Staff, HospitalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient DischargePatient SatisfactionPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadenglandhospitalsnursespatient satisfactionquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID29326193
PMCPMC5781188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.