|
Nurses and Patients at University Medical Center in
Tucson, Ariz., know firsthand what happens when a hospital
hires more RNs. Since April, nurses on the medical/surgical
and telemetry units there have cared for no more than
four patients on a shift as part of a new hospital policy.
The hospital has hired 25 new nurses and is filling
another 30 new positions.
As a result, Erin Brown, RN, clinical leader at University
Medical Center, said that nurses now have time to sit
and talk with patients. They have time to educate families
and patients about their conditions. They have time
to help less experienced colleagues. They have time
to look at lab results earlier and catch potential problems.
They have time to notice things like whether a patient
has difficulty breathing or possible cardiac difficulties.
"Are less mistakes being made?" Brown asked.
"Absolutely. Are we seeing less incident reports?
Absolutely. This has allowed us to go beyond the minimum.
You can do those extra things that make a difference
for the patient and give fulfillment to the nurse."
After years of studies, experts now are saying what
most hospital nurses have known for years-more care
by RNs means better care for patients in hospitals.
The difference is now there is scientific evidence to
prove it. >>
A study recently published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, "Nurse Staffing Levels and the Quality
of Care in Hospitals," reprised a government study
released last year showing that lower levels of RN staffing
in hospitals is associated with an increased risk of
potentially fatal complications in patients.
That article sparked stories in the national press
and ricocheted through the health care community, but
research since the 1970s has indicated a significant
relationship between amount of nursing care and better
outcomes for patients.
A number of studies have shown a relationship between
RN staffing and health-care associated infections, pressure
ulcers and falls. Studies by researcher Linda Aiken,
Ph.D., RN, have focused on better patient outcomes in
designated nursing Magnet hospitals, where RNs generally
have more autonomy and better communication with physicians
than in non-Magnet hospitals. Aiken's work suggests
the importance of nursing organization, as well as adequate
staffing.
The challenge now, researchers say, is to develop a
model that will show how having more RNs and deploying
them correctly not only improves patient care, but also
makes good economic sense. Researchers also need to
look more carefully at the mix of RNs, LVNs and aides
to determine how various nurse-to-patient ratios affect
patient populations.
Regardless of what future research shows, the growing
body of evidence is beginning to persuade hospital administrators
and government health analysts that nursing is an important
part of the health care picture. And given the nursing
shortage, nurse executives say, it becomes more important
than ever to attract and keep people in nursing.
"Hopefully, the debate is over about whether nursing
matters," said Peter Buerhaus, Ph.D., RN, FAAN,
professor of nursing and senior associate dean for research
at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing in Nashville,
Tenn. "I think people now think the government
spent a lot of money just to prove what everybody knows."
Buerhaus is co-director of the most recent and perhaps
best-publicized studies on the relationship between
nurse-staffing levels and quality of care in hospitals.
The Department of Health and Human Services originally
released that study in 2001, led by Jack Needleman,
Ph.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health. It was
published in the May 30 edition of the New England Journal
of Medicine.
Needleman and Buerhaus analyzed outcomes for more than
6 million medical and surgical patients in 799 hospitals
across the country, using administrative data from 1997.
They determined that patients in hospitals with the
greatest proportion of RN care-as opposed to care by
aides or LVNs-were less likely to develop pneumonia,
shock or cardiac arrest, upper gastrointestinal bleeding,
blood poisoning or a blood clot.
These complications-called "outcomes potentially
sensitive to nursing" or OPSNs because they can
be prevented by good nursing care-occurred 3 percent
to 9 percent more often in hospitals with lower RN staffing.
"Those are all nasty complications," Buerhaus
said. "If a patient gets one of those, they are
at an increased risk of death."
He offered two explanations for the apparent relationship
between RN care and better outcomes. The first, strongly
suggested by his and Needleman's work, he said, is that
in hospitals with a higher proportion of RN care, nurses
simply have more time to spend with patients, and can
catch possible complications.
"The chances are better that the nurses will have
more contact with the patients, go on rounds, maybe
help out with feeding and taking in trays and maybe
even personal issues," he said. In lower-staffed
hospitals, nurses who must rush from room to room and
spend time trying catch up on paperwork may not be able
to spend much time with each patient, he said.
A second possibility-suggested by some of Aiken's work,
he said-is that close communication between nurses and
physicians may mean nurses are able to alert physicians
quickly to any changes in the patient's condition and
prevent potential complications.
Buerhaus suspects both explanations are correct. In
either case, he added, RN vigilance, training and knowledge
play important roles in saving lives. "We don't
want to convey the suggestion that aides or LVNs aren't
important," he said. "I know aides and LVNs
are important." But if a hospital administrator
is deciding how to improve quality of care and has a
choice of hiring more aides, LVNs or RNs, Buerhaus said,
"my clinical and research experience says it would
be the RNs."
Several studies by the American Nurses Association
have shown that increased percentages of RN care were
associated with lower infection rates, showing a 0.3
percent to 0.7 percent reduction in infection rates
with a 1 percent increase in percentage of RN hours
of care.
The ANA also has looked at relationships between RN
care and nursing-related outcomes such as pressure ulcers
and falls, said Patricia Rowell, Ph.D., RN, senior policy
fellow in nursing practice and policy at the American
Nurses Association. The association would like to do
a full analysis of all the nursing care and outcomes
studies to see where the gaps in the research lie and
show what further work needs to be done, she said.
Julie Sochalski, Ph.D., RN, FAAN, associate professor
at the University of Pennsylvania, research faculty
member at the Center for Health Services and Policy
Research and co-investigator with Aiken on nursing workforce
studies, has spent more than six years researching the
correlation between patient outcomes and staffing.
"There has been a fair amount of evidence out
there," she said. "Better-staffed hospitals
have better outcomes."
The Needleman-Buerhaus study is important because it
looks at a large number of hospitals in 11 states, she
said. Like Buerhaus, she believes that the expertise
that RNs bring to hospital work is invaluable and unique.
"You're looking at a group of people that train
at a higher level," she said. "They have a
greater education. The knowledge base they have is much
broader. It's a deeper, richer education."
Sochalski's work with Aiken has shown that hospitals
that are known for respecting, trusting and supporting
that RN training-those designated as nursing Magnet
hospitals by the American Nurses Credentialing Center
program-have shown better patient outcomes than non-Magnet
hospitals. Magnet hospitals are committed to RN staffing,
Sochalski said. But they also organize nursing care
in a way that lets nurses be autonomous and take more
responsibility for patient care. "It's not enough
to have enough people," she said. "You have
to deploy them correctly."
Other work by Aiken has found that two-thirds of nurses
surveyed in Pennsylvania hospitals believe they do not
have enough staff to get their work done, and about
40 percent said they had no time to comfort or talk
with patients. One-third reported that hospital infections
had occurred regularly in the year preceding the survey.
A recent national study of RNs by NURSEWEEK and the
American Organization of Nurse Executives supports Aiken's
work.
About half the nurse respondents said their jobs involve
so many non-nursing tasks that little time remains for
nursing. Nearly 90 percent said the nursing shortage
was a major problem that prevented them from spending
time with patients, two-thirds said the shortage was
a major problem that affected the quality of nursing
care, and 64 percent said it was a major problem in
maintaining patient safety.
Only 40 percent thought opportunities to influence
decisions about workplace organizations were good, very
good or excellent. About half said the opportunities
to influence decisions about patient care were good,
very good or excellent.
Most researchers agree that the next step is to develop
economic models that show how hiring more nurses will
save hospitals money in the long run. "Nursing
is not cheap," Buerhaus said. "People are
going to have to be making some very tough decisions."
Researchers now must study the actual cost benefits
of increasing low RN staffs, he said. That means figuring
out what it costs to increase staffing from, say 55
percent to 75 percent RNs, and how much that cost would
be offset by fewer adverse outcomes, happier patients
and shorter patient stays. "We think there's a
potential economic case to make that hospitals will
get an economic gain by bringing in more RNs and patients
would be better off," Buerhaus said.
The cost benefits of retention also need further study,
Sochalski said. She cited one report that showed that
if an average hospital with an average mix of nursing
staff reduced vacancies from 13 percent to 10 percent,
it could reduce costs by about $800,000.
"Talk about a win-win situation," she said.
"Save money, make better patients." Such studies
would be valuable to the head of a hospital that is
trying to persuade a board of trustees to invest in
staff, she said. But right now, those studies are hard
to find.
Researchers also need to look further at the mix of
RNs, LVNs and aides to determine what works best. Most
studies avoid discussing specific nurse-patient ratios,
said Ada Sue Hinshaw, Ph.D., RN, FAAN, dean and professor
at the University of Michigan School of Nursing in Ann
Arbor, and author of a book on Magnet hospitals. "Because
conditions vary so much. Having magic ratios is not
really helpful."
Nurse executives need the freedom to make staffing
decisions based on the needs of their hospital and their
patients, said Lisa Sams, MSN, RN, president of Clinical
Linkages Inc., a Virginia-based company that works with
hospitals to improve outcomes.
"We can't say, 'Somebody, tell me what to do,'
" Sams said. The recent patient-outcome studies
have given nursing great evidence to help make good
decisions, she said. But nurses no longer can say, "We've
always used team models" or "Everyone must
use an all-RN model."
On the other hand, if evidence shows that having a
certain percentage of RNs on staff saves lives, ratios
should at least be considered, Sochalski said. "I'm
not big on legislated numbers, but I think that if you
have good evidence that says you're going to save lives
by increasing staff, you certainly to have that discussion
on the table, as a number of states are."
Some hospital administrators are acting without government
prompting. Applications for Magnet hospital status have
increased tremendously in the past year, Rowell said.
"In some states, it's becoming almost a way of
marketing yourself."
Marty Enriquez, MS, RN, vice president of patient care
services at University Medical Center in Tucson called
the Needleman-Buerhaus study "probably the most
helpful of anything we've ever seen" for persuading
hospitals to hire more nurses.
When the study appeared in the New England Journal
of Medicine, nurses at University Medical Center were
thrilled to see their hospital's increased commitment
to nursing justified in the pages of a prestigious medical
journal. "It was great to have a factual study
that supports what we are doing," Brown said. "It
lends us credibility. I am really grateful for the insight
of our hospital. It's a great, great thing and I hope
it spreads."
Although that study was published after University
Medical Center changed its policy, Enriquez used some
of Aiken's work on outcomes to persuade the hospital
board to invest in hiring more nurses and commit to
a 1-to-4 nurse-patient ratio. She also focused on studies
showing how much money the hospital would save in training,
recruitment and retention.
"We have been reading everything that's been coming
out in the press, and everything indicates that work
environment is very important," she said.
At least one nurse who planned to retire has changed
her mind because of the increased staffing, Enriquez
said. She believes that when nurses understand the hospital
is serious about its commitment to nursing-it has applied
for Magnet status-the remaining vacancies will be filled
and, eventually, the hospital will save money because
nurses won't want to leave. She hopes the hospital will
set an example for others in the area.
Many hospital administrators believe the question of
whether to hire more nurses is moot because they already
are struggling to hire staff in the face of a nursing
shortage.
"I think they're convinced that nurses are important
and that they're important in certain numbers,"
Hinshaw said. "But it's one thing to understand
that intellectually and another thing to put money into
it." She is concerned that hospitals are throwing
money into bonuses and other short-term solutions instead
of focusing on creating good work environments for the
nurses they have.
She hopes that as the evidence mounts, the government
and the health care industry will see good nursing care
as a worthy investment, like good technology or good
physicians.
Before the studies on nurse staffing, Hinshaw said,
"we all knew inherently that nursing made a difference,
but it was considered part of the hotel bill. People
never could provide evidence of how we made a difference.
We had no data on that."
The Needleman-Buerhaus study and others have finally
provided that data, nurse researchers say. "We
get paid for the knowledge we bring," Rowell said.
"I think the evidence is there if people will open
their eyes and look at it."
Contact
Cathryn Domrose at kaguilar@well.com.
|