Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to addresses the basic question of whether alternative legislative approaches are effective in encouraging hospitals to increase nurse staffing. METHODS: Using 16 years of nationally representative hospital-level data from the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey, we employed a difference-in-difference design to compare changes in productive hours per patient day for registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical/vocational nurses (LPNs), and nursing assistive personnel (NAP) in the state that mandated staffing ratios, states that legislated staffing committees, and states that legislated public reporting, to changes in states that did not implement any nurse staffing legislation before and after the legislation was implemented. We constructed multivariate linear regression models to assess the effects with hospital and year fixed effects, controlling for hospital-level characteristics and state-level factors. RESULTS: Compared with states with no legislation, the state that legislated minimum staffing ratios had an 0.996 (P<0.01) increase in RN hours per patient day and 0.224 (P<0.01) increase in NAP hours after the legislation was implemented, but no statistically significant changes in RN or NAP hours were found in states that legislated a staffing committee or public reporting. The staffing committee approach had a negative effect on LPN hours (difference-in-difference=−0.076, P<0.01), while the public reporting approach had a positive effect on LPN hours (difference-in-difference=0.115, P<0.01). There was no statistically significant effect of staffing mandate on LPN hours. CONCLUSIONS: When we included California in the comparison, our model suggests that neither the staffing committee nor the public reporting approach alone are effective in increasing hospital RN staffing, although the public reporting approach appeared to have a positive effect on LPN staffing. When we excluded California form the model, public reporting also had a positive ...

As hospitals' interest in nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) grows, their leadership is eager to know how their medical staffing privileging policies for these professionals compare to peer hospitals. This study assesses the extent of variation of these policies in four clinical areas and examines whether the differences are associated with state scope of practice laws for NPs and PAs. We also examine the relationship of NP and PA privileging policies to each other. Our analysis finds no evidence that hospital privileging is associated with state scope of practice, and indeed within-state variation is more significant than cross-state variation. We also find a strong correlation between NP and PA privileging in all four clinical areas. These results suggest the need for additional research to understand the institutional-level variables and human dynamics at the level of medical staffing committees that may explain the dramatic variation in privileging policies and, ultimately, the effects of different privileging levels on costs and quality.