Amelia E Schlak1, Linda H Aiken2, Jesse Chittams3, Lusine Poghosyan1, Matthew McHugh2. 1. Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY 10032, USA. 2. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, USA. 3. Biostatistics Analysis Core (BECCA lab), Office of Nursing Research (ONR), University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burnout remains a persistent issue affecting nurses across the US health system. Limited evidence exists about the direct impact of nurse burnout on patient outcomes. This study explores the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality, failure to rescue, and length of stay, while also considering the effect of a good work environment. METHODS: Cross sectional data from nurses and hospitals were used in conjunction with patient claims data. Multivariate logistic regression was used to study the relationship between nurse burnout, patient outcomes, the work environment, and Magnet status. RESULTS: Higher odds of patient mortality, failure to rescue, and prolonged length of stay were found in hospitals that had, on average, higher nurse burnout scores. Good work environments were found to attenuate the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality, failure to rescue, and length of stay. Magnet status, another indicator of a good work environment, was found to attenuate the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality and failure to rescue. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the work environment remains a solution for hospitals looking to concurrently improve nurse burnout and patient outcomes. Administrators may look to the Magnet recognition program as a blueprint to better support nurses in providing safe, high quality care.
BACKGROUND: Burnout remains a persistent issue affecting nurses across the US health system. Limited evidence exists about the direct impact of nurse burnout on patient outcomes. This study explores the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality, failure to rescue, and length of stay, while also considering the effect of a good work environment. METHODS: Cross sectional data from nurses and hospitals were used in conjunction with patient claims data. Multivariate logistic regression was used to study the relationship between nurse burnout, patient outcomes, the work environment, and Magnet status. RESULTS: Higher odds of patientmortality, failure to rescue, and prolonged length of stay were found in hospitals that had, on average, higher nurse burnout scores. Good work environments were found to attenuate the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality, failure to rescue, and length of stay. Magnet status, another indicator of a good work environment, was found to attenuate the relationship between nurse burnout and mortality and failure to rescue. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the work environment remains a solution for hospitals looking to concurrently improve nurse burnout and patient outcomes. Administrators may look to the Magnet recognition program as a blueprint to better support nurses in providing safe, high quality care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnet; burnout; nurse burnout; patient outcomes; work environment
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Ralph G Brindis; John E Brush; David J Cohen; Andrew J Epstein; Karen Furie; George Howard; Eric D Peterson; Saif S Rathore; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Yun Wang; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anne Marie Rafferty; Sean P Clarke; James Coles; Jane Ball; Philip James; Martin McKee; Linda H Aiken Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2006-10-24 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: J Margo Brooks Carthon; Ann Kutney-Lee; Olga Jarrín; Douglas Sloane; Linda H Aiken Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Shira G Winter; Ann P Bartel; Pamela B de Cordova; Jack Needleman; Susan K Schmitt; Patricia W Stone; Ciaran S Phibbs Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: William E Rosa; Kailey E Roberts; Amelia E Schlak; Allison J Applebaum; William S Breitbart; Emily H Kantoff; Hayley Pessin; Wendy G Lichtenthal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Janell L Mensinger; Heather Brom; Donna S Havens; Alexander Costello; Christine D'Annunzio; Jennifer Dean Durning; Patricia K Bradley; Linda Copel; Linda Maldonado; Suzanne Smeltzer; Jennifer Yost; Peter Kaufmann Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: Karen B Lasater; Linda H Aiken; Douglas Sloane; Rachel French; Brendan Martin; Maryann Alexander; Matthew D McHugh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lindsay T Munn; Carolyn S Huffman; C Danielle Connor; Maureen Swick; Suzanne C Danhauer; Michael A Gibbs Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.057
Authors: Luo Lu; Yi-Ming Ko; Hsing-Yu Chen; Jui-Wen Chueh; Po-Ying Chen; Cary L Cooper Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390