Table 3

Unadjusted and adjusted ORs estimating the effects of staffing and location on medical-surgical and intensive care nurses reporting unfavourable outcomes

Odds on nurses reporting:Unadjusted and adjusted ORs (for nurses) and differences (for patients) related to the association between the outcome and:
Medical-surgical staffingIntensive care staffing
Unadjusted hospital staffingAdjusted effectsUnadjusted hospital staffingAdjusted effects
Hospital staffingNYCHospital
staffing		NYC
OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
High burnout1.13**
(1.03 to 1.24)		1.17**
(1.05 to 1.30)		0.80
(0.64 to 1.02)		1.49*
(1.10 to 2.03)		1.62**
(1.14 to 2.30)		0.92
(0.69 to 1.23)
Job dissatisfaction1.29***
(1.17 to 1.42)		1.32**
(1.19 to 1.47)		0.81
(0.64 to 1.02)		1.91***
(1.39 to 2.63)		2.07**
(1.45 to 2.97)		0.94
(0.63 to 1.40)
Intent to leave their job1.16**
(1.05 to 1.29)		1.23**
(1.11 to 1.37)		0.83
(0.63 to 1.11)		1.51**
(1.11 to 2.04)		1.72**
(1.21 to 2.43)		0.79
(0.58 to 1.08)
Poor/fair quality of care1.53***
(1.39 to 1.69)		1.50**
(1.32 to 1.70)		0.91
(0.65 to 1.27)		3.07***
(2.15 to 4.39)		3.08**
(2.00 to 4.75)		1.26
(0.83 to 1.92)
Unfavourable patient safety grade1.44***
(1.26 to 1.65)		1.44**
(1.22 to 1.69)		0.77
(0.55 to 1.09)		2.38***
(1.59 to 3.58)		3.04**
(1.88 to 4.94)		0.85
(0.57 to 1.29)
Unfavourable infection prevention grade1.25***
(1.12 to 1.39)		1.28**
(1.11 to 1.48)		0.76
(0.54 to 1.07)		1.76**
(1.18 to 2.64)		2.19**
(1.44 to 3.34)		1.06
(0.69 to 1.62)
Not definitely recommend hospital1.60***
(1.37 to 1.87)		1.52**
(1.27 to 1.83)		0.97
(0.68 to 1.39)		2.99**
(1.55 to 5.75)		3.63**
(1.85 to 7.12)		0.90
(0.53 to 1.52)
Missed patient surveillance1.21***
(1.10 to 1.32)		1.24**
(1.10 to 1.40)		0.80
(0.63 to 1.02)		1.68**
(1.24 to 2.28)		2.21**
(1.56 to 3.13)		0.83
(0.63 to 1.09)
Missed administering medications on time1.13*
(1.03 to 1.23)		1.23**
(1.11 to 1.36)		0.94
(0.73 to 1.20)		1.97***
(1.42 to 2.74)		1.98**
(1.37 to 2.87)		1.13
(0.78 to 1.64)
Missed treatments and procedures1.19***
(1.08 to 1.31)		1.20**
(1.08,1.33)		0.99
(0.79 to 1.25)		1.10
(0.76 to 1.60)		1.32
(0.92 to 1.90)		0.95
(0.69 to 1.29)
Important patient care information is lost during handoffs1.12**
(1.03 to 1.21)		1.15**
(1.03 to 1.28)		 0.73*
(0.58 to 0.93)		1.28
(0.94 to 1.75)		1.51*
(1.04 to 2.18)		0.70
(0.46 to 1.05)
Percentages of patients reporting:     
 Ratings of their hospital 8 or less (on a 10-point scale)4.5***
(3.59 to 5.49)		2.7***
(1.69 to 3.72)		1.1
(−2.04 to 4.14)		  
 They would not definitely recommend their hospital4.3***
(3.25 to 5.37)		2.9***
(1.72 to 4.05)		0.08
(−3.47 to 3.62)		  

  • Source: Nurse survey data.

  • ORs for nurse reports are from multilevel logistic regression models. Adjusted models for nurses include controls for individual nurse staffing (or differences in workloads across nurses within hospitals) as well as nurse characteristics (gender, years of experience and full-time status) and hospital characteristics (including size, teaching status, technology and separate dummy variables for public hospitals and Illinois hospitals). Percentage differences for patient reports are additive coefficients from ordinary least squares models, since the data from Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) are reported, risk adjusted, at the hospital level. Adjusted models for patients include controls for hospital size, teaching status, technology and separate dummy variables for public hospitals and Illinois hospitals.

  • *, **, *** denote differences in reports between locations which are significant with p <0.05, p <0.01 and p <0.001, respectively, using χ2 tests.

  • NYC, New York City.