Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Mid Staffs inquiry considers minimum staffing levels

  • 15 Comments

Minimum staffing levels do not necessarily improve patient outcomes, the Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry has heard.

During a seminar focusing on nursing, the inquiry considered whether minimum staffing levels should be introduced in the UK. It was attended by more than 20 of England’s most experienced nurse directors.

The seminar, which is one of seven being held to inform the inquiry’s final recommendations, heard evidence from California where minimum nurse to patient ratios were intorduced in 2004.

A research paper, presented by Leeds University professor of applied health research Dawn Dowding, found no apparent difference in outcomes between California and other states that did not have minimum staffing levels.

Professor Dowding said research showed the number of registered nurses as a proportion of the workforce appeared to have a bigger impact than just increasing numbers of nursing staff.

The seminar also heard that the average number of patients per registered nurse in the UK had increased from 6.9 to 8.4 between 2007 and 2011.

Elaine Inglesby, executive nurse director at Salford Royal Foundation Trust, told the inquiry she had set minimum staffing levels in her trust to make sure they remained safe if it was faced with a “third or fourth year” in a row of having to make savings. But she said she was anxious for new nurse executives who may not have the experience or confidence to make those judgements.

In her evidence to the public inquiry, former Mid Staffs nursing director Helen Moss said she had not known where to go for guidance on staffing levels when she was confronted with a ratio of registered to unregistered staff as low as 40:60 in some wards. Mid Staffs had been her first board level role.

Some nursing directors criticised the Care Quality Commission’s claim in its hospital dignity and nutrition report last month that staffing levels were not a determinant of poor care.

Jenny Leggott, deputy chief executive and nursing director Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, said the CQC’s judgements on staffing levels were based on comments from individual staff members rather than clear evidence.

Current Mid Staffs director of nursing Colin Ovington told the seminar that numbers alone would not ensure good care if a high proportion were temporary agency staff.

“You should be able to expect a standard of care from these individuals, in my experience you generally can’t. I have referred eight [agency nurses] to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The more temporary staff you have in your workforce the greater variability,” he said.

Concluding the seminar, inquiry chair Robert Francis said those present were the “great and the good” of the nursing world who could “turn around” other struggling organisations.

“It’s people like yourselves who can do far more about poor care than any report I write or any action by the secretary of state,” he said.

  • 15 Comments

Readers' comments (15)

  • michael stone

    Oh, for heaven's sake - this question depends on where the minimum staffing ratio is set, for any given working enviroment !

    At some critical point, 'X' staff will be working at full stretch, and reducing the number below X simply must have an adverse effect ! But if he was comparing ratios of (for example) 1:8 and 1:10, when that critical point were 1:14, he might well find that the staff ratios were not a dominant factor !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course minimum staffing levels should be introduced into the UK! The issue is past bloody debating! The clinical evidence is vast on this topic and is being used in other countries such as Australia, America, etc.

    We need a ratio of 1:4 - 8 dependent on area! And that ratio is for QUALIFIED staff, not just any staff!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is riduculas it is even being question after all the research and ancedotal evidence that is out there.

    Everyone, please please sign this petition I have found and spread the word for more to sign.

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19157

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ridiculous I meant to spell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I work on a busy atroke ward, which is supposed to be for rehabilitation.. They say we can have 5 staff on an early 4 on a late and four on a night. for 22 dependant patients, alot of these patients need all care,,,, We know have more paperwork to fill in, which takes us away from patient care!!!!!! relatives to attend to as well as the patients. There is simply not enough hours in the day and the people at the top do not seem to listen to the staff on the shop floor!!!! figures look good on paper, but dont work in real life!!!! I am not a shirker and give my all!!! It just upsets me that they are setting us an impossible task. Its like they want us to fail!!!!! They need to look at the dependancy of patients, not how many we have in a bed!!!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is all just manipulating figures again.
    New Figures please with figures for
    1. ITU / HDU, Admissions and A&E areas excluded
    2.any nurse who is not directly involved in patient care excluded
    3. specialist nurses excluded because these give advice and not patient care

    When mostly they quote ratios of qualified nurses to patients they often include ward managers who are for the most part not involved in patient care and critical and emergency care where ratios are much better. ITU 1:1 etc This hugely skews the figures and makes the ratios seem far better than the reality of the everyday experience of patients
    Our teaching hospital trust is mostly 1 : 12
    Or simply quote us the mode average not mean average.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    Anonymous | 2-Nov-2011 12:53 pm
    signed.


    Anonymous | 2-Nov-2011 12:57
    exactly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 2-Nov-2011 12:57 pm

    You have painted such an accurate picture of the reality of work for many Nurses.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 2-Nov-2011 12:53 pm already signed that one.

    Agree with all of the above. The fact that they continue to come out with bull**it like this is an insult to us all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS CAN SURELY BE WORKED OUT BY ONE THE MANY INDEPENDENT COMPANIES BEING BROUGHT IN TO WATCH OVER NURSES AND DOCTORS DAILY.
    AS THESE PEOPLE STAND AROUND WATCHING AND MAKING NOTES LETS HOPE SOME GOOD OUT OF ALL THIS TO RELIEVE THE PRESSURE OFF THE MEDICAL AND NURSING STAFF BEING EXPECTED TO GIVE CARE AT THE SAME TIME AS TICKING THE EVER INCREASING NUMBER OF BOXES/TARGETS/TIMES ETC..
    THE ONLY PROBLEM WILL BE IS WHEN THE NHS REALISE THE MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS IN ACUTE AREAS WILL MEAN MORE STAFF TO BE EMPLYED AND THAT WILL NIT BE IN THE BUDGET!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.