Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40744017›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Estimating Nurse Workload Using a Predictive Model From Routine Hospital Data: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Paul Meredith, Christina Saville, Chiara Dall'Ora, Tom Weeks, Sue Wierzbicki, Peter Griffiths

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Paul MeredithSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, University Road, Southampton, S017 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 23 8059 5903, 44 23 8059 8909.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-371X
Christina SavilleSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, University Road, Southampton, S017 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 23 8059 5903, 44 23 8059 8909.ORCID 0000-0001-7718-5689
Chiara Dall'OraSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, University Road, Southampton, S017 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 23 8059 5903, 44 23 8059 8909.ORCID 0000-0002-6858-3535
Tom WeeksPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-8783-1346
Sue WierzbickiPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-7281-8930
Peter GriffithsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, University Road, Southampton, S017 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 23 8059 5903, 44 23 8059 8909.ORCID 0000-0003-2439-2857

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Managing nurse staffing is complex due to fluctuating demand based on ward occupancy, patient acuity, and dependency. Monitoring staffing adequacy in real time has the potential to inform safe and efficient deployment of staff. Patient classification systems (PCSs) are being used for per shift workload measurement, but they add a frequent administrative task for ward nursing staff. Objective: The objective of this study is to explore whether an algorithm could estimate ward workload using existing routinely recorded data. Methods: Anonymized admission records and assessments from a PCS supporting the safer nursing care tool were used to determine nursing care demand in medical and surgical wards in a single UK hospital between February 2017 and February 2020. Records were linked by ward and time. The data were split into a training set (75%) and a test set (25%). We built a predictive model of ward workload (as measured by the PCS) using routinely recorded administrative data and admission National Early Warning Score. The outcome variable was ward workload derived from the patient classifications, measured as the number of whole-time equivalent (WTE) nursing staff per patient. Results: In a test set of 11,592 ward assessments from 42 wards with a mean WTE per patient of 1.64, the model's mean absolute error was 0.078, with a mean percentage error of 4.9%. A Bland-Altman plot of the differences between the predicted values and the assessment values showed 95% of them within 0.21 WTE per patient. Conclusions: Predictions of nursing workload from a relatively small number of routinely collected variables showed moderate accuracy for general wards in 1 English hospital. This demonstrates the potential for automating assessments of nurse staffing requirements from routine data, reducing time spent on this nonclinical overhead, and improving monitoring of real-time staffing pressures.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNursing Staff, HospitalWorkloadHumansPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingUnited Kingdomnursing staffpredictive modelsafer nursing care toolstaffingworkload

Identifiers

PMID40744017
PMCPMC12314723

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.