Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32869196›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions.

Karen B Lasater, Matthew D McHugh, Paul R Rosenbaum, Linda H Aiken, Herbert L Smith, Joseph G Reiter, Bijan A Niknam, Alexander S Hill, Lauren L Hochman, Siddharth Jain and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Skill mix versus flexibility: Decoding nurse staffing impacts on critical access hospitals.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Workload and short sickness absences in a cohort of Finnish hospital employees.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Karen B LasaterCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. karenbl@nursing.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-1954
Matthew D McHughCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paul R RosenbaumThe Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Linda H AikenCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Herbert L SmithCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joseph G ReiterCenter for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Bijan A NiknamCenter for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander S HillCenter for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lauren L HochmanCenter for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Siddharth JainThe Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jeffrey H SilberCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

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
Sci-Tech Core-Population Dynamics Research CenterP2CHD044964 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI EMILIO ALBERTO PARRADO · 2018 to 2026
$5.3M
Comparing Quality and Cost of Care Across Nursing EnvironmentsR01NR016019 · NINR · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI MCHUGH, MATTHEW D., SILBER, JEFFREY H · 2016 to 2018
$1.8M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD044964NINR NIH HHS NR014855NINR NIH HHS NR016019NINR NIH HHS R01 NR014855NINR NIH HHS R01 NR016019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear.

objectiveTo determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources.

designMatched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status. MAIN MEASURES: Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs. KEY

resultsPatients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost.

conclusionsMedicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Indexed as

Heart FailureMyocardial InfarctionAgedCohort StudiesHospital CostsHospitalsHumansMedicarePatient ReadmissionUnited Stateshealth services researchnursingquality of care

Identifiers

PMID32869196
PMCPMC7458128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.