4.5 Article

Hospital characteristics associated with nurse staffing during labor and birth: Inequities for the most vulnerable maternity patients

期刊

NURSING OUTLOOK
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2023.101960

关键词

Nursing staff; Hospital; Personnel staffing; Hospitals; Pregnancy; High risk; Workforce; Inpatients; Hospitals Teaching; Obstetric nursing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to examine the relationship between hospital characteristics and adherence to the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) nurse staffing guidelines. Findings showed that nurses generally had strong adherence to the guidelines in their hospitals. However, higher birth volume, having a neonatal intensive care unit, teaching status, and higher percentage of births paid by Medicaid were associated with lower adherence scores.
Background: Evidence is limited on nurse staffing in maternity units. Purpose: To estimate the relationship between hospital characteristics and adher-ence with Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses nurse staffing guidelines. Methods: We enrolled 3,471 registered nurses in a cross-sectional survey and obtained hospital characteristics from the 2018 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We used mixed-effects linear regression models to estimate associations between hospital characteristics and staffing guideline adherence. Findings: Overall, nurses reported strong adherence to AWHONN staffing guide-lines (rated frequently or always met by >80% of respondents) in their hospitals. Higher birth volume, having a neonatal intensive care unit, teaching status, and higher percentage of births paid by Medicaid were all associated with lower mean guideline adherence scores. Discussion and Conclusions: Important gaps in staffing were reported more frequently at hospitals serving patients more likely to have medical or obstetric complica-tions, leaving the most vulnerable patients at risk.

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