Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32414828›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2020

Performance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool to measure nurse staffing requirements in acute hospitals: a multicentre observational study.

Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, David Culliford, Natalie Pattison, Thomas Monks

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Peter GriffithsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2439-2857
Christina SavilleSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK C.E.Saville@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7718-5689
Jane BallSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
David CullifordSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Natalie PattisonDepartment of Clinical Services, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK.
Thomas MonksNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
National Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

objectivesThe best way to determine nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards is unclear. This study explores the precision of estimates of nurse staffing requirements made using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) patient classification system for different sample sizes and investigates whether recommended staff levels correspond with professional judgements of adequate staffing.

designObservational study linking datasets of staffing requirements (estimated using a tool) to professional judgements of adequate staffing. Multilevel logistic regression modelling.

setting81 medical/surgical units in four acute care hospitals.

participants22 364 unit days where staffing levels and SNCT ratings were linked to nurse reports of "enough staff for quality". PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: SNCT-estimated staffing requirements and nurses' assessments of staffing adequacy.

resultsThe recommended minimum sample of 20 days allowed the required number to employ (the establishment) to be estimated with a mean precision (defined as half the width of the CI as a percentage of the mean) of 4.1%. For most units, much larger samples were required to estimate establishments within ±1 whole time equivalent staff member. When staffing was lower than that required according to the SNCT, for each hour per patient day of registered nurse staffing below the required staffing level, the odds of nurses reporting that there were enough staff to provide quality care were reduced by 11%. Correspondingly, the odds of nurses reporting that necessary nursing care was left undone were increased by 14%. No threshold indicating an optimal staffing level was observed. Surgical specialty, patient turnover and more single rooms were associated with lower odds of staffing adequacy.

conclusionsThe 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 important 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12307968.

Indexed as

NursesNursing Staff, HospitalHospitalsHumansPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingWorkforcehealth services administration & managementhuman resource managementquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID32414828
PMCPMC7232629
OpenAlexW3024467119

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.