Dataset Information

Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether hospitals with a good organisation of care (such as improved nurse staffing and work environments) can affect patient care and nurse workforce stability in European countries.

Design

Cross sectional surveys of patients and nurses.

Setting

Nurses were surveyed in general acute care hospitals (488 in 12 European countries; 617 in the United States); patients were surveyed in 210 European hospitals and 430 US hospitals.

Participants

33 659 nurses and 11 318 patients in Europe; 27 509 nurses and more than 120 000 patients in the US.

Main outcome measures

Nurse outcomes (hospital staffing, work environments, burnout, dissatisfaction, intention to leave job in the next year, patient safety, quality of care), patient outcomes (satisfaction overall and with nursing care, willingness to recommend hospitals).

Results

The percentage of nurses reporting poor or fair quality of patient care varied substantially by country (from 11% (Ireland) to 47% (Greece)), as did rates for nurses who gave their hospital a poor or failing safety grade (4% (Switzerland) to 18% (Poland)). We found high rates of nurse burnout (10% (Netherlands) to 78% (Greece)), job dissatisfaction (11% (Netherlands) to 56% (Greece)), and intention to leave (14% (US) to 49% (Finland, Greece)). Patients' high ratings of their hospitals also varied considerably (35% (Spain) to 61% (Finland, Ireland)), as did rates of patients willing to recommend their hospital (53% (Greece) to 78% (Switzerland)). Improved work environments and reduced ratios of patients to nurses were associated with increased care quality and patient satisfaction. In European hospitals, after adjusting for hospital and nurse characteristics, nurses with better work environments were half as likely to report poor or fair care quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.61) and give their hospitals poor or failing grades on patient safety (0.50, 0.44 to 0.56). Each additional patient per nurse increased the odds of nurses reporting poor or fair quality care (1.11, 1.07 to 1.15) and poor or failing safety grades (1.10, 1.05 to 1.16). Patients in hospitals with better work environments were more likely to rate their hospital highly (1.16, 1.03 to 1.32) and recommend their hospitals (1.20, 1.05 to 1.37), whereas those with higher ratios of patients to nurses were less likely to rate them highly (0.94, 0.91 to 0.97) or recommend them (0.95, 0.91 to 0.98). Results were similar in the US. Nurses and patients agreed on which hospitals provided good care and could be recommended.

Conclusions

Deficits in hospital care quality were common in all countries. Improvement of hospital work environments might be a relatively low cost strategy to improve safety and quality in hospital care and to increase patient satisfaction.

SUBMITTER: Aiken LH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3308724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe safety of telemedicine in general and telephone triage (teletriage) safety in particular have been a focus of concern since the 1970s. Today, telehealth, now subsuming teletriage, has a basic structure and process intended to promote safety. However, inadequate telehealth systems may also compromise patient safety. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated rapid but uneven telehealth growth, both technologically and professionally. Within 5-10 years, the field will likely be more technologically advanced; however, these advances may still outpace professional standards. The need for an evidence-based system is crucial and urgent.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore ways that developed teletriage systems produce safe outcomes by examining key system components and questioning long-held assumptions.MethodsWe examined safety by performing a narrative review of the literature using key terms concerning patient safety in teletriage. In addition, we conducted system analysis of 2 typical formal systems, physician led and nurse led, in Israel and the United States, respectively, and evaluated those systems' respective approaches to safety. Additionally, we conducted in-depth interviews with representative physicians and 1 nurse using a qualitative approach.ResultsThe review of literature indicated that research on various aspects of telehealth and teletriage safety is still sparse and of variable quality, producing conflicting and inconsistent results. Researchers, possibly unfamiliar with this complicated field, use an array of poorly defined terms and appear to design studies based on unfounded assumptions. The interviews with health care professionals demonstrated several challenges encountered during teletriage, mainly making diagnosis from a distance, treating unfamiliar patients, a stressful atmosphere, working alone, and technological difficulties. However, they reported using several measures that help them make accurate diagnoses and reasonable decisions, thus keeping patient safety, such as using their expertise and intuition, using structured protocols, and considering nonmedical factors and patient preferences (shared decision-making).ConclusionsRemote encounters about acute, worrisome symptoms are time sensitive, requiring decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and urgency. Patient safety and safe professional practice are extremely important in the field of teletriage, which has a high potential for error. This underregulated subspecialty lacks adequate development and substantive research on system safety. Research may commingle terminology and widely different, ill-defined groups of decision makers with wide variation in decision-making skills, clinical training, experience, and job qualifications, thereby confounding results. The rapid pace of telehealth's technological growth creates urgency in identifying safe systems to guide developers and clinicians about needed improvements.

Project description:Background The present nursing workforce comprises four generational of nurses working side–by–side. While such a generation blend adds invaluable diversity to the workforce, it also brings added complexity. The study aimed to describe and summarise work values and attitudes of four nursing generations, namely Baby boomers, Generation X, Y and Z. Method A cross-sectional questionnaire study was adopted. A total of 778 nurses from an acute hospital in Singapore completed the online questionnaire. The Work Value and Attitude scale measuring seven constructs (Work Centrality, Non-compliance, Technology Challenge, Work life balance, leadership, Power, and Recognition) was employed for data collection. Results The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.714 for the overall instrument. Statistically significant differences amongst the four generations of nurses emerged in the Work Value and Attitude scale in the construct of non-compliance (p = 0.007), technology challenge (p = 0.027), work-life balance (p < 0.001), and recognition (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for the rest of the constructs. Discussion and conclusion The findings of this study highlight that differences in work values and attitudes exist among nurses of different generations. Generation X are less likely to challenge the conventional norm and supervisors. Generation Y and Z are the most tech-savvy generations and can adapt quickly to new technology. There is also a greater emphasis on work-life balance as the generation gets younger. Generation Y and Z nurses perceived that younger nurses do not get due respect and recognition from their colleagues. Acknowledging the generational differences in work values and attitudes can facilitate nursing management to tailor strategies to improve individual and organisation performance while creating a work environment that enhances intergeneration harmony and teamwork. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-023-01256-2.