Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31884330›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2020

Nursing workload, nurse staffing methodologies and tools: A systematic scoping review and discussion.

Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, Jeremy Jones, Natalie Pattison, Thomas Monks, Safer Nursing Care Study Group

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

124 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Impact of Rationing Nursing Care on Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. The cognitive work of acute care nurses: A hybrid model concept analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Australian neonatal nurses' professional quality of life: A descriptive cross-sectional study.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 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

7 authors.

Peter GriffithsUniversity of Southampton, Health Sciences, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration (Wessex), United Kingdom; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. Electronic address: peter.griffiths@soton.ac.uk.
Christina SavilleUniversity of Southampton, Health Sciences, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration (Wessex), United Kingdom.
Jane BallUniversity of Southampton, Health Sciences, United Kingdom; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Jeremy JonesUniversity of Southampton, Health Sciences, United Kingdom.
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire, School of Health and Social Work, United Kingdom; East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
Thomas MonksUniversity of Exeter, College of Medicine and Health, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration (Wessex), United Kingdom.
Safer Nursing Care Study Group

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/14/194/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of nurse staffing levels in acute hospital wards is widely recognised but evidence for tools to determine staffing requirements although extensive, has been reported to be weak. Building on a review of reviews undertaken in 2014, we set out to give an overview of the major approaches to assessing nurse staffing requirements and identify recent evidence in order to address unanswered questions including the accuracy and effectiveness of tools.

methodsWe undertook a systematic scoping review. Searches of Medline, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were used to identify recent primary research, which was reviewed in the context of conclusions from existing reviews.

resultsThe published literature is extensive and describes a variety of uses for tools including establishment setting, daily deployment and retrospective review. There are a variety of approaches including professional judgement, simple volume-based methods (such as patient-to-nurse ratios), patient prototype/classification and timed-task approaches. Tools generally attempt to match staffing to a mean average demand or time requirement despite evidence of skewed demand distributions. The largest group of recent studies reported the evaluation of (mainly new) tools and systems, but provides little evidence of impacts on patient care and none on costs. Benefits of staffing levels set using the tools appear to be linked to increased staffing with no evidence of tools providing a more efficient or effective use of a given staff resource. Although there is evidence that staffing assessments made using tools may correlate with other assessments, different systems lead to dramatically different estimates of staffing requirements. While it is evident that there are many sources of variation in demand, the extent to which systems can deliver staffing levels to meet such demand is unclear. The assumption that staffing to meet average need is the optimal response to varying demand is untested and may be incorrect.

conclusionsDespite the importance of the question and the large volume of publication evidence about nurse staffing methods remains highly limited. There is no evidence to support the choice of any particular tool. Future research should focus on learning more about the use of existing tools rather than simply developing new ones. Priority research questions include how best to use tools to identify the required staffing level to meet varying patient need and the costs and consequences of using tools. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Decades of research on tools to determine nurse staffing requirements is largely uninformative. Little is known about the costs or consequences of widely used tools.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingWorkloadHumansCosts and cost analysisHealth care economics and organisationsHospital administrationHospital information systemsNurse staffingNursing administration researchNursing Staff, HospitalNursing workloadOperations researchPatient Classification SystemsPatient safetyPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingQuality of health careValidation studiesWorkforce planningWorkload

Identifiers

PMID31884330
PMCPMC7086229

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.