Dataset Information

Valuing hospital investments in nursing: multistate matched-cohort study of surgical patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are known clinical benefits associated with investments in nursing. Less is known about their value.

Aims

To compare surgical patient outcomes and costs in hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources and to determine if value differs across these hospitals for patients with different mortality risks.

Methods

Retrospective matched-cohort design of patient outcomes at hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources, defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses and nurse work environments. The sample included 62 715 pairs of surgical patients in 76 better nursing resourced hospitals and 230 worse nursing resourced hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Patients were exactly matched on principal procedures and their hospital's size category, teaching and technology status, and were closely matched on comorbidities and other risk factors.

Results

Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had lower 30-day mortality: 2.7% vs 3.1% (p<0.001), lower failure-to-rescue: 5.4% vs 6.2% (p<0.001), lower readmissions: 12.6% vs 13.5% (p<0.001), shorter lengths of stay: 4.70 days vs 4.76 days (p<0.001), more intensive care unit admissions: 17.2% vs 15.4% (p<0.001) and marginally higher nurse-adjusted costs (which account for the costs of better nursing resources): $20 096 vs $19 358 (p<0.001), as compared with patients in worse nursing resourced hospitals. The nurse-adjusted cost associated with a 1% improvement in mortality at better nursing hospitals was $2035. Patients with the highest mortality risk realised the greatest value from nursing resources.

Conclusion

Hospitals with better nursing resources provided better clinical outcomes for surgical patients at a small additional cost. Generally, the sicker the patient, the greater the value at better nursing resourced hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Lasater KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7530638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources.DesignMatched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals.PatientsA total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status.Main measuresBetter (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs.Key resultsPatients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost.ConclusionsMedicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough numerous studies have assessed patient satisfaction in diverse settings, in the realm of nursing surgical care, standardization of measurement for patient experience and satisfaction is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the satisfaction of surgical patients with perioperative nursing care.MethodA descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted. Sociodemographic characteristics and clinical data were recorded. Patient satisfaction was measured with a modified version of the La Monica-Oberst Patient Satisfaction Scale (LOPSS-12).Results150 patients (73 women, 49% and 77 men; 51%) completed the survey. The mean age was 63 years (standard deviation, 16 years). The mean overall satisfaction score on the La Monica-Oberst Patient Satisfaction Scale was 3.17 (standard deviation, 0.21). The scale showed adequate content validity (Lawshe's Content Validity Index was 0.76) and moderate reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.70). Two variables-patient sex and the presence of comorbidities-were significantly associated with overall satisfaction: men and patients with comorbidities were more satisfied with the care received. Patients with university studies were significantly more likely than patients with less education to consider nurses "impatient," but also considered the nurses' advice to be "useful." Patients with hospital-acquired complications were more likely to perceive nurses to be "more interested in completing tasks than in listening," although they also felt that nurses worked "conscientiously."ConclusionOverall, patient satisfaction with perioperative nursing care was good. This study identified several areas of nursing care in need of improvement, particularly the need to spend more time with patients and to keep them better informed about the perioperative process. The modified La Monica-Oberst Patient Satisfaction Scale is suitable for measuring surgical patient satisfaction with perioperative nursing care. The findings presented here may be of value to nursing administrators, educators, and nursing care providers to improve patient satisfaction and to develop strategies to prevent patient dissatisfaction.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment for multiple rib fractures includes surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) or nonoperative management (NOM). Meta-analyses have demonstrated that SSRF results in faster recovery and lower long-term complication rates versus NOM. Our study evaluated postoperative outcomes for multiple rib fracture patients following SSRF versus NOM in a real-world, all-comer study design.MethodsMultiple rib fracture patients with inpatient admissions in the PREMIER hospital database from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020, were identified. Outcomes included discharge disposition, and 3- and 12-month lung-related readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, concurrent injuries at index, Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Scores, and provider characteristics were determined for all patients. Patients were excluded from the cohort if they had a thorax Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <2 (low severity patient) or a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤8 (extreme high severity patient). Stratum matching between SSRF and NOM patients was performed using fine stratification and weighting so that all patient data were kept in the final analysis. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models with quasinormal distribution and logit links.ResultsA total of 203,450 patients were included, of which 200,580 were treated with NOM and 2,870 with SSRF. Compared to NOM, patients with SSRF had higher rates of home discharge (62% SSRF vs. 58% NOM) and lower rates of lung-related readmissions (3 months, 3.1% SSRF vs. 4.0% NOM; 12 months, 6.2% SSRF vs. 7.6% NOM). The odds ratio (OR) for home or home health discharge in patients with SSRF versus NOM was 1.166 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.073-1.266; p = 0.0002). Similarly, ORs for lung-related readmission at 3- and 12-month were statistically lower in the patients treated with SSRF versus NOM (OR [3 months], 0.764 [95% CI, 0.606-0.963]; p = 0.0227 and OR [12 months], 0.799 [95% CI, 0.657-0.971]; p = 0.0245).ConclusionSurgical stabilization of rib fractures results in greater odds of home discharge and lower rates of lung-related readmissions compared with NOM at 12 months of follow-up.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Project description:Each year, 200,000 patients undergo an in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), with approximately 15-20% surviving to discharge. Little is known, however, about the long-term prognosis of these patients after discharge. Previous efforts to describe out-of-hospital survival of IHCA patients have been limited by small sample sizes and narrow patient populationsA single institution matched cohort study was undertaken to describe mortality following IHCA. Patients surviving to discharge following an IHCA between 2008 and 2010 were matched on age, sex, race and hospital admission criteria with non-IHCA hospital controls and follow-up between 9 and 45 months. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox PH models assessed differences in survival.Of the 1262 IHCAs, 20% survived to hospital discharge. Of those discharged, survival at 1 year post-discharge was 59% for IHCA patients and 82% for controls (p<0.0001). Hazard ratios (IHCA vs. controls) for mortality were greatest within the 90 days following discharge (HR=2.90, p<0.0001) and decreased linearly thereafter, with those surviving to one year post-discharge having an HR for mortality below 1.0. Survival after discharge varied amongst IHCA survivors. When grouped by discharge destination, out of hospital survival varied; in fact, IHCA patients discharged home without services demonstrated no survival difference compared to their non-IHCA controls (HR 1.10, p=0.72). IHCA patients discharged to long-term hospital care or hospice, however, had a significantly higher mortality compared to matched controls (HR 3.91 and 20.3, respectively; p<0.0001).Among IHCA patients who survive to hospital discharge, the highest risk of death is within the first 90 days after discharge. Additionally, IHCA survivors overall have increased long-term mortality vs.Survival rates were varied widely with different discharge destinations, and those discharged to home, skilled nursing facilities or to rehabilitation services had survival rates no different than controls. Thus, increased mortality was primarily driven by patients discharged to long-term care or hospice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Healthcare interventions on weekends have been associated with increased mortality and adverse clinical outcomes, but these findings are inconsistent. We hypothesized that patients admitted to hospital on weekends who have surgery have an increased risk of death compared with patients who are admitted and have surgery on weekdays. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This matched cohort study included 318,202 adult patients from Ontario health administrative and demographic databases, admitted to acute care hospitals from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2015. A total of 159,101 patients who were admitted on weekends and underwent noncardiac surgery were classified by day of surgery (weekend versus weekday) and matched 1:1 to patients who both were admitted and had surgery on a weekday (Tuesday to Thursday); matching was based on age (in years), anesthesia basic unit value for the surgical procedure, median neighborhood household income quintile, resource utilization band (a ranking system of overall morbidity), rurality of home location, year of admission, and urgency of admission. Of weekend admissions, 16.2% (25,872) were elective and 53.9% (85,744) had surgery on the weekend of admission. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of the date of hospital admission. The 30-day all-cause mortality for patients admitted on weekends who had noncardiac surgery was 2.6% (4,211/159,101) versus 2.5% (3,901/159,101) for those who were admitted and had surgery on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; P = 0.03). However, there was significant heterogeneity in the increased odds of death according to the urgency of admission and when surgery was performed (weekend versus weekday). For urgent admissions on weekends (n = 133,229), there was no significant increase in odds of mortality when surgery was performed on the weekend (adjusted OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; P = 0.7) or on a subsequent weekday (adjusted OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; P = 0.2) compared to urgent admissions on weekdays. Elective admissions on weekends (n = 25,782) had increased risk of death both when surgery was performed on the weekend (adjusted OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.98 to 5.49; P < 0.001) and when surgery was performed on a subsequent weekday (adjusted OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.81 to 4.03; P < 0.001). The main limitations of this study were the lack of data regarding reason for admission and cause of increased time interval from admission to surgery for some cases, the small number of deaths in some subgroups (i.e., elective surgery), and the possibility of residual unmeasured confounding from increased illness severity for weekend admissions. CONCLUSIONS:When patients have surgery during their hospitalization, admission on weekends in Ontario, Canada, was associated with a small but significant proportional increase in 30-day all-cause mortality, but there was significant heterogeneity in outcomes depending on the urgency of admission and when surgery was performed. An increased risk of death was found only for elective admissions on weekends; whether this is a function of patient-level factors or represents a true weekend effect needs to be further elucidated. These findings have potential implications for resource allocation in hospitals and the redistribution of elective surgery to weekends.