Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39584562›Full record

ArticleJMIR nursing2024

Calculating Optimal Patient to Nursing Capacity: Comparative Analysis of Traditional and New Methods.

Anna Ware, Terri Blumke, Peter Hoover, David Arreola

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Patient-Count and Perceived Workload Associations With Missed Nursing Care: A Multicenter Repeated-Measures Study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Observational
  3. 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

4 authors.

Anna WareNational Center for Collaborative Healthcare Innovation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3333-7833
Terri BlumkeNational Center for Collaborative Healthcare Innovation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-4945-3571
Peter HooverNational Center for Collaborative Healthcare Innovation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6235-3141
David ArreolaNational Center for Collaborative Healthcare Innovation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2865-3797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Optimal nurse staffing levels have been shown to impact patients' prognoses and safety, as well as staff burnout. The predominant method for calculating staffing levels has been patient-to-nurse (P/N) ratios and nursing hours per patient day. However, both methods fall short of addressing the dynamic nature of staffing needs that often fluctuate throughout the day as patients' clinical status changes and new patients are admitted or discharged from the unit. Objective: In this evaluation, the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS) piloted a new dynamic bed count calculation in an effort to target optimal staffing levels every hour to provide greater temporal resolution on nurse staffing levels within the Veterans Health Administration. Methods: The dynamic bed count uses elements from both the nursing hours per patient day and P/N ratio to calculate current and target staffing levels, every hour, while balancing across nurse types (registered nurses to nurse assistants) to provide improved temporal insight into staff allocation. The dynamic bed count was compared with traditional P/N ratio methods of calculating patient capacity at the VAPAHCS, to assess optimal patient capacity within their acute care ward from January 1, 2023, through May 25, 2023. Descriptive statistics summarized patient capacity variables across the intensive care unit (ICU), medical-surgical ICU, and 3 acute care units. Student t tests (2-tailed) were used to analyze differences between patient capacity measures. Results: Hourly analysis of patient capacity information displayed how the dynamic bed count provided improved temporal resolution on patient capacity. Comparing the dynamic bed count to the P/N ratio, we found the patient capacity, as determined by the P/N ratio, was, on average, higher than that of the dynamic bed count across VAPAHCS acute care units and the medical-surgical ICU (P<.001). For example, in acute care unit 3C, the average dynamic bed count was 21.6 (SD 4.2) compared with a P/N ratio of 28.6 (SD 3.2). This suggests that calculating patient capacity using P/N ratios alone could lead to units taking on more patients than what the dynamic bed count suggests the unit can optimally handle. Conclusions: As a new patient capacity calculation, the dynamic bed count provided additional details and timely information about clinical staffing levels, patient acuity, and patient turnover. Implementing this calculation into the management process has the potential to empower departments to further optimize staffing and patient care.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingHospital Bed CapacityHumansUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsWorkloadcomparative analysisNHPPDnursenurse assistantsnurse schedulingnurse staffingnursingnursing administrationnursing hours per patient daypatient capacitypatient ratioregistered nursesstaff allocationstaffingworkload

Identifiers

PMID39584562
PMCPMC11612603

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.