Conectar
Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models.
Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods.
Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.
Preventing readmission to hospital after giving birth is a key priority, as rates have been rising along with associated costs. There are many contributing factors to readmission, and some are thought to be preventable. Nurse and midwife understaffing has been linked to deficits in care quality. This study explores the relationship between staffing levels and readmission rates in maternity settings.
We conducted a retrospective longitudinal study using routinely collected individual patient data in three maternity services in England from 2015 to 2020. Data on admissions, discharges and case-mix were extracted from hospital administration systems. Staffing and workload were calculated in Hours Per Patient day per shift in the first two 12-hour shifts of the index (birth) admission. Postpartum readmissions and staffing exposures for all birthing admissions were entered into a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the odds of readmission when staffing was below the mean level for the maternity service.
64 250 maternal admissions resulted in birth and 2903 mothers were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (4.5%). Absolute levels of staffing ranged between 2.3 and 4.1 individuals per midwife in the three services. Below average midwifery staffing was associated with higher rates of postpartum readmissions within 7 days of discharge (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.108, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.223). The effect was smaller and not statistically significant for readmissions within 30 days of discharge (aOR 1.080, 95% CI 0.994 to 1.174). Below average maternity assistant staffing was associated with lower rates of postpartum readmissions (7 days, aOR 0.957, 95% CI 0.867 to 1.057; 30 days aOR 0.965, 95% CI 0.887 to 1.049, both not statistically significant).
We found evidence that lower than expected midwifery staffing levels is associated with more postpartum readmissions. The nature of the relationship requires further investigation including examining potential mediating factors and reasons for readmission in maternity populations.
The aim of this study was to present the third position statement from the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). The ILC is the foremost global organization dedicated to transforming fundamental care. Internationally, fundamental care is reported to be poorly delivered, delayed or missed, negatively impacting patients, their families/carers and healthcare staff and systems. Overcoming this global challenge requires profound transformation in how our healthcare systems value, deliver and evaluate fundamental care. This transformation will take both evolutionary and revolutionary guises. In this position statement, we argue how this [r]evolutionary transformation for fundamental care can and must be created within clinical practice.
Position paper.
This position statement stems from the ILC's annual conference and Leadership Program held in Portland, Maine, USA, in June 2023. The statement draws on the discussions between participants and the authors' subsequent reflections and synthesis of these discussions and ideas. The conference and Leadership Program involved participants (n = 209) from 13 countries working primarily within clinical practice.
The statement focuses on what must occur to transform how fundamental care is valued, prioritized and delivered within clinical practice settings globally. To ensure demonstrable change, the statement comprises four action-oriented strategies that must be systematically owned by healthcare staff and leaders and embedded in our healthcare organizations and systems: Address non-nursing tasks: reclaim and protect time to provide high-value fundamental care. Accentuate the positive: change from deficit-based to affirmative language when describing fundamental care. Access evidence and assess impact: demonstrate transformation in fundamental care by generating relevant indicators and impact measures and rigorously synthesizing existing research. Advocate for interprofessional collaboration: support high-quality, transdisciplinary fundamental care delivery via strong nursing leadership.
The ILC Maine Statement calls for ongoing action – [r]evolution – from healthcare leaders and staff within clinical practice to prioritize fundamental care throughout healthcare systems globally.
We outline four action-oriented strategies that can be embedded within clinical practice to substantially transform how fundamental care is delivered. Specific actions to support these strategies are outlined, providing healthcare leaders and staff a road map to continue the transformation of fundamental care within our healthcare systems.
Fundamental care affects everyone across their life course, regardless of care context, clinical condition, age and/or the presence of disability. This position statement represents a call to action to healthcare leaders and staff working specifically in clinical practice, urging them to take up the leadership challenge of transforming how fundamental care is delivered and experience globally.
Patients, service users and caregivers were involved in the ILC annual conference, thus contributing to the discussions that shaped this position statement.
The strategies and actions outlined in this position statement are relevant to all clinical settings globally, providing practical strategies and actions that can be employed to enhance fundamental care for all patients and their families/carers. By outlining the importance of both evolutionary and revolutionary change, we identify ways in which healthcare systems globally can begin making the necessary steps towards radical fundamental care transformation, regardless of where they are in the change journey.
To map the concepts of the caring life-course theory that are used in life-course approaches from different disciplines; establish whether there is a common recognition of, or language used, to describe care in those life-course approaches; and identify the role and contribution of care to the life-course literature.
This discursive paper uses a narrative review process to explore points of convergence and divergence between life-course approaches and the caring life-course theory.
Categories for analysis were developed deductively and inductively, focusing on the constructs of fundamental care, capacity and capability, care network, care transition, care trajectory and care biography.
We identified four disciplinary perspectives: (1) life-course sociology; (2) life-course epidemiology; (3) lifespan developmental psychology; and (4) life-course health development. While six core constructs of the caring life-course theory were described, either explicitly or implicitly, in existing life-course approaches, no single approach fully describes the role and contribution of care across the lifespan.
Life-course approaches have largely neglected the contribution and role of care in informing the life-course discourse. This review highlights the significance of care beyond traditional healthcare settings and recognizes it as a fundamental human need for well-being and development, which can contribute to existing life-course literature.
There is a need to understand care as a complex system and embrace a whole-system, life-course approach to enable nurses and other healthcare professionals to provide high-quality, patient-centred care.
Incorporating care within a life-course approach provides opportunities to integrate and deliver care centred around the person, their life transitions, trajectories and care networks, including informal carers and healthcare professionals.
Patients or members of the public were not involved in this study as it is a discursive paper based on the relevant literature.
FreshRSS 