Display options
Share it on

Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Jul;46(7):884-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.008. Epub 2008 Dec 25.

Identifying thresholds for relationships between impacts of rationing of nursing care and nurse- and patient-reported outcomes in Swiss hospitals: a correlational study.

International journal of nursing studies

Maria Schubert, Sean P Clarke, Tracy R Glass, Bianca Schaffert-Witvliet, Sabina De Geest

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

PMID: 19111306 PMCID: PMC2845960 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.008

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the Rationing of Nursing Care in Switzerland Study, implicit rationing of care was the only factor consistently significantly associated with all six studied patient outcomes. These results highlight the importance of rationing as a new system factor regarding patient safety and quality of care. Since at least some rationing of care appears inevitable, it is important to identify the thresholds of its influences in order to minimize its negative effects on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the levels of implicit rationing of nursing care in a sample of Swiss acute care hospitals and to identify clinically meaningful thresholds of rationing.

DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional multi-center study.

SETTINGS: Five Swiss-German and three Swiss-French acute care hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS: 1338 nurses and 779 patients.

METHODS: Implicit rationing of nursing care was measured using the newly developed Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (BERNCA) instrument. Other variables were measured using survey items from the International Hospital Outcomes Study battery. Data were summarized using appropriate descriptive measures, and logistic regression models were used to define a clinically meaningful rationing threshold level.

RESULTS: For the studied patient outcomes, identified rationing threshold levels varied from 0.5 (i.e., between 0 ('never') and 1 ('rarely') to 2 ('sometimes')). Three of the identified patient outcomes (nosocomial infections, pressure ulcers, and patient satisfaction) were particularly sensitive to rationing, showing negative consequences anywhere it was consistently reported (i.e., average BERNCA scores of 0.5 or above). In other cases, increases in negative outcomes were first observed from the level of 1 (average ratings of rarely).

CONCLUSIONS: Rationing scores generated using the BERNCA instrument provide a clinically meaningful method for tracking the correlates of low resources or difficulties in resource allocation on patient outcomes. Thresholds identified here provide parameters for administrators to respond to whenever rationing reports exceed the determined level of '0.5' or '1'. Since even very low levels of rationing had negative consequences on three of the six studied outcomes, it is advisable to treat consistent evidence of any rationing as a significant threat to patient safety and quality of care.

References

  1. J Clin Nurs. 2000 Jan;9(1):25-35 - PubMed
  2. Nurs Times. 1985 Mar 6-12;81(10):24-6 - PubMed
  3. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2001 Spring;23(4):416-42 - PubMed
  4. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(4):290-7 - PubMed
  5. Health Serv Res. 2007 Jun;42(3 Pt 2):1281-98 - PubMed
  6. J Nurs Care Qual. 2006 Oct-Dec;21(4):306-13; quiz 314-5 - PubMed
  7. Nurs Econ. 2007 Mar-Apr;25(2):59-66, 55; quiz 67 - PubMed
  8. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002 Feb;14(1):5-13 - PubMed
  9. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Aug;20(4):227-37 - PubMed
  10. Med Care. 2004 Feb;42(2 Suppl):II67-73 - PubMed
  11. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 Mar;45(3):370-81 - PubMed
  12. Am J Public Health. 1997 Jan;87(1):103-7 - PubMed
  13. JAMA. 2002 Oct 23-30;288(16):1987-93 - PubMed
  14. J Adv Nurs. 2004 Aug;47(4):427-36 - PubMed
  15. Milbank Q. 2001;79(1):55-79; 2 p preceding VI - PubMed
  16. Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1140-6 - PubMed
  17. Nurs Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;56(6):416-24 - PubMed
  18. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Feb;46(2):164-71 - PubMed
  19. Res Nurs Health. 2002 Jun;25(3):176-88 - PubMed
  20. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 May-Jun;20(3):43-53 - PubMed
  21. Nurs Res. 2000 May-Jun;49(3):146-53 - PubMed
  22. West J Nurs Res. 2006 Oct;28(6):654-77 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Nurs. 2005 Apr;14(4):435-43 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support