Dataset Information

Nurse-sensitive outcomes in district nursing care: A Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine nurse-sensitive outcomes in district nursing care for community-living older people. Nurse-sensitive outcomes are defined as patient outcomes that are relevant based on nurses' scope and domain of practice and that are influenced by nursing inputs and interventions.

Design

A Delphi study following the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with two rounds of data collection.

Setting

District nursing care in the community care setting in the Netherlands.

Participants

Experts with current or recent clinical experience as district nurses as well as expertise in research, teaching, practice, or policy in the area of district nursing.

Main outcome measures

Experts assessed potential nurse-sensitive outcomes for their sensitivity to nursing care by scoring the relevance of each outcome and the ability of the outcome to be influenced by nursing care (influenceability). The relevance and influenceability of each outcome were scored on a nine-point Likert scale. A group median of 7 to 9 indicated that the outcome was assessed as relevant and/or influenceable. To measure agreement among experts, the disagreement index was used, with a score of <1 indicating agreement.

Results

In Delphi round two, 11 experts assessed 46 outcomes. In total, 26 outcomes (56.5%) were assessed as nurse-sensitive. The nurse-sensitive outcomes with the highest median scores for both relevance and influenceability were the patient's autonomy, the patient's ability to make decisions regarding the provision of care, the patient's satisfaction with delivered district nursing care, the quality of dying and death, and the compliance of the patient with needed care.

Conclusions

This study determined 26 nurse-sensitive outcomes for district nursing care for community-living older people based on the collective opinion of experts in district nursing care. This insight could guide the development of quality indicators for district nursing care. Further research is needed to operationalise the outcomes and to determine which outcomes are relevant for specific subgroups.

SUBMITTER: Veldhuizen JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118269 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a lack of evidence to guide district nurses in using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes as it is unclear how these outcomes are currently used in daily district nursing practice. Therefore, we aimed to explore (1) which nurse-sensitive patient outcomes are measured and how these outcomes are measured, (2) how district nurses use the outcomes to learn from and improve current practice and (3) the barriers and facilitators to using outcomes in current district nursing practice. An exploratory cross-sectional survey study was conducted. The survey was distributed online among nurses working for various district nursing care organisations across the Netherlands. The responses from 132 nurses were analysed, demonstrating that different instruments or questionnaires are available and used in district nursing care as outcome measures. The nurse-sensitive patient outcomes most often measured with validated instruments are pain using the Numeric Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale, delirium using the Delirium Observation Scale, weight loss using the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire and caregiver burden using the Caregiver Strain Index or a Dutch equivalent. Falls and client satisfaction with delivered care are most often measured using unvalidated outcome measures. The other nurse-sensitive outcomes are measured in different ways. Outcomes are measured, reported and fed back to the nursing team multiple times and in various ways to learn from and improve current practice. In general, nurses have a positive attitude towards using nurse-sensitive outcomes in practice, but there is a lack of facilitation to support them. Because insight into how nurses can and should be supported is still lacking, exploring their needs in further research is desirable. Additionally, due to the high variation in the utilisation of outcomes in current practice, it is recommended to create more uniformity by developing (inter)national guidelines on using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in district nursing care.

Project description:BackgroundDespite representing the largest occupational group within the healthcare workforce, evidence suggests that due to the complexity of nursing practice, nurses' contribution remains 'invisible'. Quality Care Metrics aligned to standards can offer valuable numerical information that quantify input, output and dimensions of nursing care processes in complex clinical and interprofessional milieus.Aims and objectivesProgress an evidence-based metric system to measure the quality and clinical safety of nursing care within acute care in Ireland. The objectives were to: classify quality care process nursing metrics and corresponding indicators pertinent to acute care; reach agreement on a selected set of robust metrics and corresponding indicators; and implement the findings of the study.DesignA modified four-round Delphi study.MethodsThe modified Delphi study integrated a four-round survey of 422 nurses, face-to-face meetings with a patient representative and key stakeholders within acute services with a final consensus meeting inclusive of a panel of 26 expert nurse clinicians.ResultsThere was consensus on 11 quality care process nursing metrics and 53 corresponding indicators for the acute care setting. Despite the rating of 'critical' in the Delphi rounds, a concern was reported by participants on the subjective nature of three of the developed metrics: 'patient experience', 'patient engagement' and 'professional and ethical approach to care' based on the absence of objective measurement tools that include patient input. Conversely, this led to the conundrum for the panel of experts at the final consensus meeting who were divided in their views on objectively observing, recording and subsequent auditing of those three developed metrics in real-time clinical practice.ConclusionThis paper describes the operationalisation of a modified Delphi technique that progressed a set of 11 quality care process metrics and 53 corresponding indicators. The challenge now is the implementation of these quality care process metrics so that nurses' contribution to patient-centred care is tangible in acute care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate and contrast the relationships between nurse staffing and health outcomes in nursing homes with low and high dementia census, to understand the association of staffing hours with dementia care quality.Data sources and study settingA national sample of nursing homes during 2017-2019 (pre-COVID). Data included the Payroll-Based Journal, Medicare Claims, Nursing Home Care Compare, and Long-Term Care Focus.Study designRetrospective, regression analyses. We estimated separate linear models predicting six long-term facility-level outcomes. Independent variables included staffing hours per resident-day (HPRD) interacted with the facility percentage of dementia residents, controlling for other resident and facility characteristics.Data collection/extraction methodsHospital-based nursing homes, those with fewer than 30% dementia residents, and missing data were excluded.Principal findingsWe found that registered nurses and certified nurse assistants HPRDs were likely to exhibit positive returns in terms of outcomes throughout most of the range of HPRD for both high and low-census dementia facilities, although, high- and low-dementia facilities differed in most outcome rates at all staffing levels. Average predicted antipsychotics and activities of daily living as functions of HPRD were worse in higher dementia facilities, independent movement, and hospitalizations did not differ significantly, and Emergency Rooms and pressure sores were worse in lower dementia facilities. Average marginal effects were not statistically different [CI included zero] between the high and low dementia facilities for any outcome.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that increasing staffing will improve outcomes by similar increments in both low- and high-dementia facilities for all outcomes. However, at any given level of staffing, absolute differences in outcomes between low- and high-dementia facilities remain, suggesting that additional staffing alone will not suffice to close these gaps. Further studies are required to identify opportunities for improvement in performance for both low- and high-dementia census facilities.