Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275213›Full record

ReviewNursing open2022

Consensus Development Project (CDP): An overview of staffing for safe and effective nursing care.

Jane E Ball, Peter Griffiths

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nursing open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Jane E BallSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8655-2994
Peter GriffithsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present an overview of the research evidence on nurse staffing levels in acute hospitals, and how it has been applied to policy and practice, focussing primarily on the UK. Drawing on research reviews and examples of specific studies, we outline the current state of knowledge. Much of the evidence comes from cross-sectional studies. More recently, longitudinal studies allow a causal link between staffing and outcomes to be inferred. Lack of specificity on staffing levels has hindered application of research findings to practice; research rarely specifies how many nurses are needed for safe and effective care. The most significant impediment to achieving safe staffing has been an underestimation of the number of RNs needed and overestimation of the potential for substitution, resulting in low baseline staffing and a national shortage of RNs. Repeatedly, new staffing solutions are sought rather than tackle the problem of too few RNs head-on.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingConsensus Statements as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansWorkforcehospitalnurse staffingpatient safetypolicyworkforce

Identifiers

PMID34275213
PMCPMC8859068

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.