4.5 Article

Nurse staffing, missed care, quality of care and adverse events: A cross-sectional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 447-454

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13501

关键词

adverse events; missed care; nurse staffing; quality of nursing; Thailand

资金

  1. Chiang Mai University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study illustrates that inadequate nurse staffing in Thai university hospitals leads to increased missed care, which in turn results in adverse events and lower quality of care. The findings highlight the importance of improving nurse staffing and resource adequacy to enhance patient care outcomes.
Aim This study aimed to illustrate the relationship between nurse staffing and missed care, and how missed care affects quality of care and adverse events in Thai hospitals. Background Quality and safety are major priorities for health care system. Nurse staffing and missed care are associated with low quality of care and adverse events. However, examination of this relationship is limited in Thailand. Methods This cross-sectional study collected data from 1188 nurses in five university hospitals across Thailand. The participants completed questionnaires that assessed the patient-to-nurse ratio, adequacy of staffing, missed care, quality of care and adverse events. Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations. Results Higher patient-to-nurse ratio, poor staffing and lack of resource adequacy were significantly associated with higher odds of reporting missed care. Higher nurse-reported missed care was significantly associated with higher odds of adverse events and poor quality of care. Conclusions Poor nurse staffing was associated with missed care, and missed care was associated with adverse events and lower quality of care in Thai university hospitals. Implications for Nursing Management Improving nurse staffing and assuring adequate resources are recommended to reduce missed care and adverse events and increase quality of care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据