Eileen T Lake1,2,3, Kathryn A Riman4, Christopher S Lee5. 1. Jessie M. Scott Endowed Term Chair in Nursing and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Nursing and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 5. William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
AIMS: To identify and describe profiles of nursing resources and compare nurse and patient outcomes among the identified nursing resource profiles. BACKGROUND: Research linking nurse education, staffing, and the work environment treats these nursing resources as separate variables. Individual hospitals exhibit distinct profiles of these resources. METHODS: This cross-sectional secondary analysis used 2006 data from 692 hospitals in four states. Latent class mixture modelling was used to identify resource profiles. Regression models estimated the associations among the profiles and outcomes. RESULTS: Three profiles were identified (better, mixed and poor) according to their nursing resource levels. Hospitals with poor profiles were disproportionately mid-sized, for-profit, and had lower technology capability. Nurse job outcomes, patient mortality and care experiences were significantly improved in hospitals with better resource profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals exhibit distinct profiles of nursing resources that reflect investments into nursing. Nurse and patient outcomes and patients' experiences are improved in hospitals with better nursing resource profiles. This finding is consistent with the literature that has examined these resources independently. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers can identify their nursing resource profile and the associated outcomes. Our results show the advantages of improving one's hospital nursing resource profile, motivating managers to make an informed decision regarding investments in nursing resources.
AIMS: To identify and describe profiles of nursing resources and compare nurse and patient outcomes among the identified nursing resource profiles. BACKGROUND: Research linking nurse education, staffing, and the work environment treats these nursing resources as separate variables. Individual hospitals exhibit distinct profiles of these resources. METHODS: This cross-sectional secondary analysis used 2006 data from 692 hospitals in four states. Latent class mixture modelling was used to identify resource profiles. Regression models estimated the associations among the profiles and outcomes. RESULTS: Three profiles were identified (better, mixed and poor) according to their nursing resource levels. Hospitals with poor profiles were disproportionately mid-sized, for-profit, and had lower technology capability. Nurse job outcomes, patient mortality and care experiences were significantly improved in hospitals with better resource profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals exhibit distinct profiles of nursing resources that reflect investments into nursing. Nurse and patient outcomes and patients' experiences are improved in hospitals with better nursing resource profiles. This finding is consistent with the literature that has examined these resources independently. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers can identify their nursing resource profile and the associated outcomes. Our results show the advantages of improving one's hospital nursing resource profile, motivating managers to make an informed decision regarding investments in nursing resources.
Authors: Eileen T Lake; Jordan Sanders; Rui Duan; Kathryn A Riman; Kathryn M Schoenauer; Yong Chen Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Linda H Aiken; Douglas M Sloane; Luk Bruyneel; Koen Van den Heede; Peter Griffiths; Reinhard Busse; Marianna Diomidous; Juha Kinnunen; Maria Kózka; Emmanuel Lesaffre; Matthew D McHugh; M T Moreno-Casbas; Anne Marie Rafferty; Rene Schwendimann; P Anne Scott; Carol Tishelman; Theo van Achterberg; Walter Sermeus Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karen B Lasater; Matthew McHugh; Paul R Rosenbaum; Linda H Aiken; Herbert Smith; Joseph G Reiter; Bijan A Niknam; Alexander S Hill; Lauren L Hochman; Siddharth Jain; Jeffrey H Silber Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Karen B Lasater; Douglas M Sloane; Matthew D McHugh; Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch; Linda H Aiken Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.238