Dataset Information

An Integrative Review of Team Nursing and Delegation: Implications for Nurse Staffing during COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, providing care for critically ill patients has been challenging due to the limited number of skilled nurses, rapid transmission of the virus, and increased patient acuity in relation to the virus. These factors have led to the implementation of team nursing as a model of nursing care out of necessity for resource allocation. Nurses can use prior evidence to inform the model of nursing care and reimagine patient care responsibilities during a crisis.

Purpose

To review the evidence for team nursing as a model of patient care and delegation and determine how it affects patient, nurse, and organizational outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an integrative review of team nursing and delegation using Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) methodology.

Results

We identified 22 team nursing articles, 21 delegation articles, and two papers about U.S. nursing laws and scopes of practice for delegation. Overall, team nursing had varied effects on patient, nursing, and organizational outcomes compared with other nursing care models. Education regarding delegation is critical for team nursing, and evidence indicates that it improves nurses' delegation knowledge, decision-making, and competency.

Linking evidence to action

Team nursing had both positive and negative outcomes for patients, nurses, and the organization. Delegation education improved team nursing care.

SUBMITTER: Beckett CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8450812 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of nurse staffing levels in acute hospital wards is widely recognised but evidence for tools to determine staffing requirements although extensive, has been reported to be weak. Building on a review of reviews undertaken in 2014, we set out to give an overview of the major approaches to assessing nurse staffing requirements and identify recent evidence in order to address unanswered questions including the accuracy and effectiveness of tools.MethodsWe undertook a systematic scoping review. Searches of Medline, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were used to identify recent primary research, which was reviewed in the context of conclusions from existing reviews.ResultsThe published literature is extensive and describes a variety of uses for tools including establishment setting, daily deployment and retrospective review. There are a variety of approaches including professional judgement, simple volume-based methods (such as patient-to-nurse ratios), patient prototype/classification and timed-task approaches. Tools generally attempt to match staffing to a mean average demand or time requirement despite evidence of skewed demand distributions. The largest group of recent studies reported the evaluation of (mainly new) tools and systems, but provides little evidence of impacts on patient care and none on costs. Benefits of staffing levels set using the tools appear to be linked to increased staffing with no evidence of tools providing a more efficient or effective use of a given staff resource. Although there is evidence that staffing assessments made using tools may correlate with other assessments, different systems lead to dramatically different estimates of staffing requirements. While it is evident that there are many sources of variation in demand, the extent to which systems can deliver staffing levels to meet such demand is unclear. The assumption that staffing to meet average need is the optimal response to varying demand is untested and may be incorrect.ConclusionsDespite the importance of the question and the large volume of publication evidence about nurse staffing methods remains highly limited. There is no evidence to support the choice of any particular tool. Future research should focus on learning more about the use of existing tools rather than simply developing new ones. Priority research questions include how best to use tools to identify the required staffing level to meet varying patient need and the costs and consequences of using tools.Tweetable abstractDecades of research on tools to determine nurse staffing requirements is largely uninformative. Little is known about the costs or consequences of widely used tools.

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.

Project description:ImportanceStaff absences and departures at nursing homes may put residents at risk and present operational challenges.ObjectiveTo quantify changes in nursing home facility staffing during and after a severe COVID-19 outbreak.Design setting and participantsIn this cohort study, daily staffing payroll data were used to construct weekly measures of facility staffing, absences, departures, and use of overtime and contract staff among US nursing homes experiencing a severe COVID-19 outbreak that started between June 14, 2020, and January 1, 2021. Facility outbreaks were identified using COVID-19 case data. An event-study design with facility and week fixed effects was used to investigate the association of severe outbreaks with staffing measures.ExposuresWeeks since the beginning of a severe COVID-19 outbreak (4 weeks prior to 16 weeks after).Main outcomes and measuresTotal weekly staffing hours, staff counts, staff absences, departures, new hires, overtime and contract staff hours measured for all nursing staff and separately by staff type (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants), facility self-reported staff shortages, and resident deaths.ResultsOf the included 2967 nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, severe outbreaks were associated with a statistically significant drop in nursing staffing levels owing to elevated absences and departures. Four weeks after an outbreak's start, around when average new cases peaked, staffing hours were 2.6% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.2%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels, despite facilities taking substantial measures to bolster staffing through increased hiring and the use of contract staff and overtime. Because these measures were mostly temporary, staffing declined further in later weeks; 16 weeks after an outbreak's start, staffing hours were 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels. Staffing declines were greatest among certified nursing assistants, primarily owing to smaller increases in new hires of this staff type compared with licensed practical nurses and registered nurses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, facilities experienced considerable staffing challenges during and after outbreaks. These results suggest the need for policy action to ensure facilities' abilities to maintain adequate staffing levels during and after infectious disease outbreaks.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of Hurricane Irma on staff-related financial expenditures and daily direct-care nurse staffing levels.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSeptember 3-24, 2017 in the state of Florida, United States. Hurricane Irma made landfall on September 10, 2017.ParticipantsSix hundred and fifty-three nursing homes (NHs), 81 evacuated facilities, and 572 facilities that sheltered-in-place.MeasurementsThis study used data from Payroll-Based Journaling (PBJ), Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER), and Florida's health providers' emergency reporting system. PBJ provided estimates of daily direct-care nurse staffing levels for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants. CASPER reported facility-level characteristics such as profit status, chain membership, and special care unit availability. Florida's emergency reporting system identified evacuation status during Hurricane Irma. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the unique contribution of evacuation status on daily staffing increases over time from September 3 to 10.ResultsAmong all facilities, we found significant increases in staffing for licensed practical nurses (p = 0.02) and certified nursing assistants (p < 0.001), but not for registered nurses (p = 0.10) before Hurricane Irma made landfall. From 1 week before landfall to 2 weeks after landfall (September 3-24), an additional estimated $2.41 million was spent on direct-care nurse staffing. In comparison to facilities that sheltered-in-place, evacuated facilities increased staffing levels of all nurse types (all p < 0.001). At landfall, evacuated facilities spent an estimated $93.74 on nurse staffing per resident whereas facilities that sheltered-in-place spent $76.10 on nurse staffing per resident.ConclusionNHs face unprecedented challenges during hurricanes, including maintaining adequate direct-care nurse staffing levels to meet the needs of their residents. NHs that evacuated residents had an increase in direct-care nurse staffing that was greater than that seen in NHs that sheltered-in-place.