Dataset Information

Association Between Wages and Nursing Staff Turnover in Iowa Nursing Homes.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Nursing staff turnover is a substantial concern for nursing homes that care for millions of older individuals, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Low pay is considered as one of the key reasons for high turnover. However, we do not know whether increasing wages can lead to lower turnover. In this study, we fill this gap in our understanding by analyzing the relationship between wages and nursing staff turnover.

Research design and methods

We obtained data on hourly wages (Medicare Cost Reports), turnover (Iowa Department of Human Services), and nursing home and resident characteristics (Nursing Home Compare and LTCFocus) from 2013 to 2017. We summarized the characteristics of nursing homes as well as turnover trends over time. Next, we used pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) and facility fixed effects regressions to examine the relationship between wages and turnover adjusting for nursing home and resident characteristics.

Results

Among the 396 nursing homes in Iowa, average hourly wage was $27.0 for registered nurses (RNs), $21.6 for licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and $14.1 for certified nurse aides (CNAs) during 2013-2017. Average turnover rates were increasing over time for all staff types and in 2017, turnover rates were 46.0% for RNs, 44.4% for LPNs, and 64.7% for CNAs. In both pooled OLS and facility fixed effects regressions, higher wages were associated with lower turnover of CNAs but not LPNs or RNs. The magnitude of the effect of wages on turnover for CNAs was lower in facility fixed effects regressions.

Discussion and implications

We found a significant relationship between hourly wages and turnover for CNAs but not for LPNs or RNs. Focusing on higher wages alone may not lead to lower turnover of all types of nursing staff in nursing homes. We should also focus on nonwage factors related to turnover.

SUBMITTER: Sharma H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9233199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Soundscapes in nursing homes are often suboptimal for residents. This can cause them feeling anxious and unsafe, or develop behavioral and psychological problems. Residents with dementia cannot adapt nursing home environments to their needs due to cognitive and physical limitations. It is up to the staff of psycho-geriatric wards to improve the soundscape. We evaluated the effect of the sound awareness intervention Mobile Soundscape Appraisal and Recording Technology (MoSART+) on soundscapes in nursing homes. Methods The MoSART+ intervention was carried out in four nursing homes and took three months in each home. The MoSART+ intervention involved training ambassadors, assessing the soundscape with the MoSART application by the nursing staff to raise their sound awareness on random time points, discussing the measurements, and implementing micro-interventions. Soundscapes were assessed from 0 to 100 on four attributes: pleasantness, eventfulness, complexity, and range of affordances. Based on these scores, soundscapes were classified in four dimensions: calm, lively, boring, and chaotic. Nursing staff graded the environment on a scale of 0 to 10. T-test and Z-tests were used to analyze data. Results Staff recorded 1882 measurements with the MoSART app. “People,” “music, TV, and radio,” and “machines and appliances” were the most prevalent sound sources before and after the implementation of micro-interventions. Post-implementation of micro-interventions, soundscapes were pleasant (median 69.0; IQR 54.0–81.0), of low complexity (33.0; 18.0–47.0), uneventful (27.0; 14.0–46.5), and gave moderate affordances (50.0; 35.0–67.0). Changes in attributes were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The proportion of the dimension calm increased (z = 12.7, p < 0.01), the proportion of chaotic decreased (z = 15.0, p < 0.01), and the proportion of lively decreased not statically significant (z = 0.68, p = 0.79). The proportion of boring was unchanged. The proportion of grades ≥6 increased after implementation of the micro-interventions (z = 15.3, p < 0.01). The micro-interventions focused on removing or reducing disturbing sounds and were unique for each nursing home. Discussion The MoSART+ intervention resulted in a statistically significantly improvement of soundscapes, and more favorable evaluations of the nursing staff. The intervention empowered staff to adapt soundscapes. Nursing homes can improve soundscapes by raising sound awareness among staff. Trial Registration Netherlands National Trial Register (NL6831).

Project description:BackgroundElder abuse in long-term care is an important public health concern with social, health-related, and economic implications. Staff-to-resident abuse is of particular interest since institutions should protect residents' rights and prevent harm. To provide an up-to date comprehensive overview of staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes, we performed a scoping review considering types of abuse, their prevalence and associated factors, descriptions, experiences, and preventive interventions.MethodsWe performed a scoping review following the framework provided by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO via Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, we performed free web searching using Google Scholar and checked relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected studies. We narratively synthesised the results.ResultsOut of 3876 references retrieved by our search, we included 46 studies in 47 reports. The prevalence rates of abuse varied widely, ranging from 0 to 93% depending on the type of abuse. Associated factors of abuse at the staff, resident, and nursing home level were evaluated inconsistently. Abuse was perceived ambiguous: even though it was considered unacceptable, it was underreported. We found only four studies addressing preventive interventions. Of these, four made recommendations for intervention development. Only one study with an experimental design examined a multi-component intervention including education and mutual support.ConclusionsThe review yielded heterogenous evidence not allowing a concrete conclusion on prevalence and associated factors. However, the results show the significance of the problem and indicate that there are associate factors of abuse that can be influenced by appropriate interventions. These are amongst other staff education, organisational culture, and conditions. Further research should investigate the composition and content of preventive interventions and their potential to reduce abusive behaviours.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral states implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home employees, which may have improved vaccine coverage but may have had the unintended consequence of staff departures.ObjectiveTo assess whether state vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees are associated with staff vaccination rates and reported staff shortages.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study performed event study analyses using National Healthcare Safety Network data from June 6, 2021, through November 14, 2021. Changes in weekly staff vaccination rates and reported staffing shortages were evaluated for nursing homes in states with mandates after the mandate announcement compared with changes in facilities in nonmandate states. An interaction between the mandates and county political leaning was considered. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2022.ExposuresWeeks after announcement of a state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.Main outcomes and measuresWeekly percentage of all health care staff at a nursing home who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, and a weekly indicator of whether a nursing home reported a staffing shortage.ResultsAmong 38 study-eligible states, 26 had no COVID-19 vaccine mandate for nursing home employees, 4 had a mandate with a test-out option, and 8 had a mandate with no test-out option. Ten weeks or more after mandate announcement, nursing homes in states with a mandate and no test-out option experienced a 6.9 percentage point (pp) increase in staff vaccination coverage (95% CI, -0.1 to 13.9); nursing homes in mandate states with a test-out option experienced a 3.1 pp increase (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.7) compared with facilities in nonmandate states. No significant increases were detected in the frequency of reported staffing shortages after a mandate announcement in mandate states with or without test-out options. Increases in vaccination rates in states with mandates were larger in Republican-leaning counties (14.3 pp if no test-out option; 4.3 pp with option), and there was no evidence of increased staffing shortages.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that state-level vaccine mandates were associated with increased staff vaccination coverage without increases in reported staffing shortages. Vaccination increases were largest when mandates had no test-out option and were also larger in Republican-leaning counties, which had lower mean baseline vaccination rates. These findings support the use of state mandates for booster doses for nursing home employees because they may improve vaccine coverage, even in areas with greater vaccine hesitancy.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most frequent complaints in the nursing profession. Thus, the 12-month prevalence of pain in the lumbar spine in nursing staff is as high as 76%. Only a few representative studies have assessed the prevalence rates of back pain and its risk factors among nursing staff in nursing homes in comparison to staff in home-based care facilities. The present study accordingly investigates the prevalence in the lumbar and cervical spine and determines the physical workload to lifting and caring in geriatric care. METHODS: 1390 health care workers in nursing homes and home care participated in this cross sectional survey. The nursing staff members were examined by occupational physicians according to the principals of the multistep diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational exposure to daily care activities with patient transfers was measured by a standardised questionnaire. The lumbar load was calculated with the Mainz-Dortmund dose model. Information on ergonomic conditions were recorded from the management of the nursing homes. Comparisons of all outcome variables were made between both care settings. RESULTS: Complete documentation, including the findings from the occupational physicians and the questionnaire, was available for 41%. Staff in nursing homes had more often positive orthopaedic findings than staff in home care. At the same time the values calculated for lumbar load were found to be significant higher in staff in nursing homes than in home-based care: 45% vs. 6% were above the reference value. Nursing homes were well equipped with technical lifting aids, though their provision with assistive advices is unsatisfactory. Situation in home care seems worse, especially as the staff often has to get by without assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should focus on counteracting work-related lumbar load among staff in nursing homes. Equipment and training in handling of assistive devices should be improved especially for staff working in home care.

Project description:ImportanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major threat to nursing homes. During the COVID-19 pandemic wave that hit France in March and April 2020, staff members of some French nursing homes decided to confine themselves with their residents on a voluntary basis to reduce the risk of entry of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into the facility.ObjectiveTo investigate COVID-19-related outcomes in French nursing homes that implemented voluntary staff confinement with residents.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in French nursing homes from March 1 to May 11, 2020. Participants included residents and staff members of the nursing homes where staff participated in voluntary self-confinement as well as those of the facilities for elderly people where staff did not practice self-confinement. Rates of COVID-19 cases and mortality in the cohort of nursing homes with self confinement were compared with those derived from a population-based survey of nursing homes conducted by French health authorities.ExposuresNursing homes with staff who self-confined were identified from the media and included if the confinement period of staff with residents was longer than 7 days.Main outcomes and measuresMortality related to COVID-19 among residents and COVID-19 cases among residents and staff members. COVID-19 was diagnosed by primary care or hospital physicians on the basis of fever and respiratory signs (eg, cough, dyspnea) or a clinical illness compatible with COVID-19; COVID-19 diagnoses were considered confirmed if real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on nasopharyngeal swab was positive and considered possible if the test had not been performed or results were negative. Cases of COVID-19 were recorded by a telephone interview with the directors of nursing homes with staff who self-confined and by a nationwide declaration survey to health authorities for all facilities.ResultsThis study included 17 nursing homes in which 794 staff members confined themselves to the facility with their 1250 residents. The national survey included 9513 facilities with 385 290 staff members and 695 060 residents. Only 1 nursing home with staff who self-confined (5.8%) had cases of COVID-19 among residents, compared with 4599 facilities in the national survey (48.3%) (P < .001). Five residents (0.4%) in the nursing homes with staff who self-confined had confirmed COVID-19, compared with 30 569 residents (4.4%) with confirmed COVID-19 in the national survey (P < .001); no residents of facilities with self-confinement had possible COVID-19, compared with 31 799 residents (4.6%) with possible COVID-19 in the national survey (P < .001). Five residents (0.4%) in the nursing homes with staff who self-confined died of COVID-19, compared with 12 516 (1.8%) in the national survey (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.53; P < .001). Twelve staff members (1.6%) from the facilties with self-confinement had confirmed or possible COVID-19, compared with 29 463 staff members (7.6%) in the national survey (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of French nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates related to COVID-19 were lower among nursing homes that implemented staff confinement with residents compared with those in a national survey. These findings suggest that self-confinement of staff members with residents may help protect nursing home residents from mortality related to COVID-19 and residents and staff from COVID-19 infection.