Dataset Information

Institutional effects on nurses' working conditions: a multi-group comparison of public and private non-profit and for-profit healthcare employers in Switzerland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In response to the need for competitive recruitment of nurses resulting from the worldwide nursing shortage, employers need to attract and retain nurses by promoting their competitive strengths in their working conditions (WCS) and by addressing their competitive weaknesses. This study investigated workplace differences between public hospitals (PuHs), private for-profit hospitals (PrHs), socio-medical institutions (SOMEDs), home care services (HCs), private medical offices (PrOs) and non-profit organisations (NPOs), helping to provide a foundation for competition-oriented institutional employer branding and to increase transparency in the labour market for nurses.

Methods

Data from the Swiss Nurses at Work study of the career paths of 11?232 nurses who worked in Switzerland between 1970 and 2014 were subjected to secondary analysis, assessing the effect of institutional characteristics on self-reported determinants of job satisfaction (such as WCS) using multivariate linear regression and post hoc tests with Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels. Principal component analysis was used to reduce the number of WCS in the original study.

Results

Nurses at PuHs and PrHs were less likely to experience autonomy, flexibility of work hours and participation in decision-making than those at other workplaces. Although PuHs were rated higher than PrHs in terms of satisfaction with salary and advancement opportunities, they were associated with more alienating work factors, such as stress and aggression. SOMED workplaces were significantly more often associated with alienating conditions and low job satisfaction, but were rated higher than the other institutions in terms of participation in decision-making. The nurses' ratings implied that PrO workplaces were more likely to offer a mild work environment, social support and recognition than other institutions, but that advancement opportunities were limited. NPO workplaces were associated with the highest degree of autonomy, flexibility, participation, recognition, organisational commitment and job satisfaction. In these respects, HC and NPO workplaces received similar ratings, although the HC workplaces were associated with a significantly lower organisational commitment and significantly lower job satisfaction.

Conclusions

Due to their structural characteristics, NPOs, SOMEDs and HCs can attract nurses seeking greater self-determination, PuHs can attract career-oriented nurses, and PrOs and PrHs are likely to attract nurses through offering less-stressful working conditions.

SUBMITTER: Aeschbacher R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6230274 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Institutional effects on nurses' working conditions: a multi-group comparison of public and private non-profit and for-profit healthcare employers in Switzerland.

Aeschbacher Remo R Addor Véronique V

Human resources for health 20181109 1

<h4>Background</h4>In response to the need for competitive recruitment of nurses resulting from the worldwide nursing shortage, employers need to attract and retain nurses by promoting their competitive strengths in their working conditions (WCS) and by addressing their competitive weaknesses. This study investigated workplace differences between public hospitals (PuHs), private for-profit hospitals (PrHs), socio-medical institutions (SOMEDs), home care services (HCs), private medical offices (P ...[more]

PMID: 30413167

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccess to sexual and reproductive health services remains a challenge for many in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Health service delivery in the four countries is decentralised and provided by the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors. When accessing sexual and reproductive health services, clients encounter numerous challenges, which might differ per sector. Healthcare workers have first-hand insight into what impediments to access exist at their health facility. The aim of this study was to identify differences and commonalities in barriers to access to sexual and reproductive health services across the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers working in health facilities offering sexual and reproductive health services in Kenya (n = 212), Tanzania (n = 371), Uganda (n = 145) and Zambia (n = 243). Data were collected in July 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data, while binary logistic regression analyses were used to test for significant differences in access barriers and recommendations between sectors.ResultsAccording to healthcare workers, the most common barrier to accessing sexual and reproductive health services was poor patient knowledge (37.1%). Following, issues with supply of commodities (42.5%) and frequent stockouts (36.0%) were most often raised in the public sector; in the other sectors these were also raised as an issue. Patient costs were a more significant barrier in the private (33.3%) and private not-for-profit sectors (21.1%) compared to the public sector (4.6%), and religious beliefs were a significant barrier in the private not-for-profit sector compared to the public sector (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-3.56). In all sectors delays in the delivery of supplies (37.4-63.9%) was given as main stockout cause. Healthcare workers further believed that it was common that clients were reluctant to access sexual and reproductive health services, due to fear of stigmatisation, their lack of knowledge, myths/superstitions, religious beliefs, and fear of side effects. Healthcare workers recommended client education to tackle this.ConclusionsDemand and supply side barriers were manifold across the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors, with some sector-specific, but mostly cross-cutting barriers. To improve access to sexual and reproductive health services, a multi-pronged approach is needed, targeting client knowledge, the weak supply chain system, high costs in the private and private not-for-profit sectors, and religious beliefs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the quality of care-using unplanned acute hospital readmissions as a quality measure-among patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs), private non-profit hospitals (PNPs) and public hospitals (PUBs) in Norway.DesignA retrospective comparative study using the Norwegian Patient Register. Readmissions were evaluated by logistic regressions both using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, and a two-stage model using distance as an instrumental variable.SettingThe Norwegian healthcare system.PopulationAll publicly financed patients having primary total hip (37 897 patients) or primary total knee arthroplasty (25 802 patients) at one of the three hospital types from 2009 to 2014.Primary outcome measure30-day unplanned acute hospital readmission rate.ResultsWe found highest readmission rates among PUBs and lowest among PFPs, for both procedures. However, the patients were on average more than 2 years younger at PFPs. PFPs also treated the least severe patients, while PUBs treated the most severe. Using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, compared to PUBs, both PFPs and PNPs had lower odds of readmission following both procedures. However, using the instrumental variable method, the only significant difference found was a lower odds of readmission at PNPs among hip patients when compared with PUBs. No patients in our data set were readmitted to PFPs, those originally treated at PFPs were readmitted to either PNPs or PUBs, and PUBs received most of the readmitted patients across hospital types.ConclusionsQuality differences between hospital types were small; however, PNPs had significantly lower readmission rates compared with PUBs among patients having total hip arthroplasty. PUBs received the larger part of the readmitted patients across hospital types and thus play an essential role in the care of more complex patients and for readmissions, regardless of any quality differences.

Project description:IntroductionUnderstanding the cost of care associated with different kinds of healthcare providers is necessary for informing the policy debates in mixed health-systems like India's. Existing studies reporting Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) per episode of outpatient care in public and private providers in India do not provide a fair comparison because they have not taken into account the government subsidies received by public facilities. Public and private health insurance in India do not cover outpatient care and for-profit providers have to meet all their costs out of the payments they take from patients.MethodsThe average direct cost per acute episode of outpatient care was compared for public providers, for-profit formal providers and informal private providers in Chhattisgarh state of India. For public facilities, government subsidies for various inputs were taken into account. Resources used were apportioned using Activity Based Costing. Land provided free to public facilities was counted at market prices. The study used two datasets: a) household survey on outpatient utilisation and OOPE b) facility survey of public providers to find the input costs borne by government per outpatient-episode.ResultsThe average cost per episode of outpatient care was Indian Rupees (INR) 400 for public providers, INR 586 for informal private providers and INR 2643 for formal for-profit providers and they managed 39.3, 37.9 and 22.9% of episodes respectively. The average cost for government and households put together was greater for using formal for-profit providers than the public providers. The disease profile of care handled by different types of providers was similar. Volume of patients and human-resources were key cost drivers in public facilities. Close to community providers involved less cost than others.Conclusions and recommendationsThe findings have implications for the desired mix of public and private providers in India's health-system. Poor regulation of for-profit providers was an important structural cost driver. Purchasing outpatient care from private providers may not reduce average cost. Policies to strengthen public provisioning of curative primary care close to communities can help in reducing cost.

Project description:While transition of donor programs to national control is increasingly common, there is a lack of evidence about the consequences of transition for private health care providers. In 2015, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) identified 734 facilities in Uganda for transition from PEPFAR support, including 137 private not-for-profits (PNFP) and 140 private for-profits (PFPs). We sought to understand the differential impacts of transition on facilities with differing ownership statuses. We used a survey conducted in mid-2017 among 145 public, 29 PNFP and 32 PFP facilities reporting transition from PEPFAR. The survey collected information on current and prior PEPFAR support, service provision, laboratory services and staff time allocation. We used both bivariate and logistic regression to analyse the association between ownership and survey responses. All analyses adjust for survey design. Public facilities were more likely to report increased disruption of sputum microscopy tests following transition than PFPs [odds ratio (OR) = 5.85, 1.79-19.23, P = 0.005]. Compared with public facilities, PNFPs were more likely to report declining frequency of supervision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since transition (OR = 2.27, 1.136-4.518, P = 0.022). Workers in PFP facilities were more likely to report reduced time spent on HIV care since transition (OR = 6.241, 2.709-14.38, P < 0.001), and PFP facilities were also more likely to discontinue HIV outreach following transition (OR = 3.029, 1.325-6.925; P = 0.011). PNFP facilities' loss of supervision may require that public sector supervision be extended to them. Reduced HIV clinical care in PFPs, primarily HIV testing and counselling, increases burdens on public facilities. Prior PFP clients who preferred the confidentiality and service of private facilities may opt to forgo HIV testing altogether. Donors and governments should consider the roles and responses of PNFPs and PFPs when transitioning donor-funded health programs.

Dataset Information

Institutional effects on nurses' working conditions: a multi-group comparison of public and private non-profit and for-profit healthcare employers in Switzerland.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Institutional effects on nurses' working conditions: a multi-group comparison of public and private non-profit and for-profit healthcare employers in Switzerland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets