Worse Nursing-Sensitive Indicators in Black-serving Hospitals.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Eileen T Lake, Celsea C Tibbitt, John F Rizzo, Christin Iroegbu, Jessica G Smith, Douglas Staiger, Jeannette A Rogowski
{"title":"Worse Nursing-Sensitive Indicators in Black-serving Hospitals.","authors":"Eileen T Lake, Celsea C Tibbitt, John F Rizzo, Christin Iroegbu, Jessica G Smith, Douglas Staiger, Jeannette A Rogowski","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In hospitals that serve disproportionately patients of black race, here termed Black-serving hospitals, nurse staffing is worse, mortality rates are higher, and nursing-sensitive indicators may be worse than in other hospitals, but this evidence has not been compiled.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study objective was to examine whether nursing-sensitive indicators, which measure changes in patient health status directly affected by nursing care, differ in hospitals where Black patients predominantly access their care, as compared to other hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To fulfill the objective, a cross-sectional design using publicly available 2019 to 2022 Hospital Compare and 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) and Case Mix Index file databases was used. Four nursing-sensitive indicators were evaluated: pressure ulcer, postoperative sepsis, perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, and death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications ('failure to rescue') in hospitals classified into high, medium, and low Black-serving hospitals according to the percent patients of Black race in the MEDPAR data. Mean outcome differences across Black-serving hospital categories were assessed through analyses of variance and regression models, which controlled for hospital Case Mix Index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 3,101 hospitals were predominantly urban non-teaching hospitals in metropolitan areas. Although 12% of hospitals had Magnet designation, Black-serving hospitals were disproportionately Magnet (14%). The outcome rates were 0.59 for pressure ulcers, 3.38 for perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, 143.58 for failure to rescue, and 4.12 for sepsis. Rates were significantly higher for pressure ulcers, perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, and sepsis in high Black-serving hospitals. The mean failure to rescue rate was similar across low-to-high Black-serving hospitals and did not show significant differences. These results were unchanged in models adjusting for CMI.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The evidence suggests that several nursing-sensitive indicators are worse in high Black-serving hospitals. Research linking nursing-sensitive indicators to nursing resources such as staffing is needed to explicate the mechanism underlying these findings. Poorer nursing-sensitive indicators in combination with poorer nurse staffing in high Black-serving hospitals presents a priority for policy and management intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000819","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In hospitals that serve disproportionately patients of black race, here termed Black-serving hospitals, nurse staffing is worse, mortality rates are higher, and nursing-sensitive indicators may be worse than in other hospitals, but this evidence has not been compiled.

Objective: The study objective was to examine whether nursing-sensitive indicators, which measure changes in patient health status directly affected by nursing care, differ in hospitals where Black patients predominantly access their care, as compared to other hospitals.

Methods: To fulfill the objective, a cross-sectional design using publicly available 2019 to 2022 Hospital Compare and 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) and Case Mix Index file databases was used. Four nursing-sensitive indicators were evaluated: pressure ulcer, postoperative sepsis, perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, and death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications ('failure to rescue') in hospitals classified into high, medium, and low Black-serving hospitals according to the percent patients of Black race in the MEDPAR data. Mean outcome differences across Black-serving hospital categories were assessed through analyses of variance and regression models, which controlled for hospital Case Mix Index.

Results: The 3,101 hospitals were predominantly urban non-teaching hospitals in metropolitan areas. Although 12% of hospitals had Magnet designation, Black-serving hospitals were disproportionately Magnet (14%). The outcome rates were 0.59 for pressure ulcers, 3.38 for perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, 143.58 for failure to rescue, and 4.12 for sepsis. Rates were significantly higher for pressure ulcers, perioperative pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, and sepsis in high Black-serving hospitals. The mean failure to rescue rate was similar across low-to-high Black-serving hospitals and did not show significant differences. These results were unchanged in models adjusting for CMI.

Discussion: The evidence suggests that several nursing-sensitive indicators are worse in high Black-serving hospitals. Research linking nursing-sensitive indicators to nursing resources such as staffing is needed to explicate the mechanism underlying these findings. Poorer nursing-sensitive indicators in combination with poorer nurse staffing in high Black-serving hospitals presents a priority for policy and management intervention.

黑人医院护理敏感指标较差。
背景:在为黑人患者提供不成比例服务的医院(这里称为黑人服务医院),护士配备更差,死亡率更高,护理敏感指标可能比其他医院差,但这一证据尚未汇编。目的:研究目的是检查护理敏感指标,即衡量直接受护理影响的患者健康状况的变化,在黑人患者主要获得护理的医院与其他医院相比是否有所不同。方法:为了实现目标,采用公开的2019年至2022年医院比较和2019年医疗保险提供者分析与回顾(MEDPAR)和病例组合索引文件数据库进行横断面设计。根据MEDPAR数据中黑人患者的百分比,分为高、中、低黑人服务医院,评估四个护理敏感指标:压疮、术后脓毒症、围手术期肺栓塞/深静脉血栓形成,以及有严重可治疗并发症(“抢救失败”)的外科住院患者的死亡率。在控制医院病例混合指数的情况下,通过方差分析和回归模型评估不同黑人服务医院类别的平均结局差异。结果:3101所医院以城市非教学医院为主。虽然12%的医院被指定为“磁铁”医院,但为黑人服务的医院却不成比例地成为“磁铁”医院(14%)。压疮的转归率为0.59,围手术期肺栓塞/深静脉血栓的转归率为3.38,抢救失败的转归率为143.58,败血症的转归率为4.12。在高布莱克服务医院,压疮、围手术期肺栓塞/深静脉血栓和脓毒症的发生率明显更高。低、高黑人服务医院的平均抢救失败率相似,无显著差异。这些结果在调整CMI的模型中没有变化。讨论:有证据表明,一些护理敏感指标在高黑人服务医院更差。需要研究将护理敏感指标与护理资源(如人员配备)联系起来,以阐明这些发现背后的机制。较差的护理敏感指标与较差的护士配置相结合,在高黑人服务医院提出了政策和管理干预的优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信