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.

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

More nurses equals better care


A week after a healthcare watchdog identified staffing shortages as a key reason for failings at an acute trust, Nursing Times has obtained new evidence confirming a direct correlation between patient outcomes and nursing workforce numbers. Steve Ford investigates

Last week the Healthcare Commission identified chronic staff shortages at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust in a highly critical report on the trust’s performance. The report estimated that as many as 400 more people than would have been expected may have died in the trust’s care between April 2005 and March 2008.

There has been debate about the actual impact of nursing staff levels in the NHS for at least a decade but previous studies have always been open to criticism that they may not show the whole picture.

Nursing staff levels have also been identified among the candidates for the new nursing performance indicators, or metrics – called for by the NHS Next Stage Review and currently being developed for roll-out across the health service. However, a subsequent key report, State of the Art Metrics for Nursing, stopped short of recommending nurse numbers as a performance indicator ‘front-runner’, tending to favour more obvious clinical measures of quality such as falls and pressure ulcers.

Now the latest statistical research by Dr Foster, revealed for the first time by Nursing Times, appears to provide the answers missing from previous studies and concludes that the more nurses an acute trust has per bed really does improve mortality rates and length of hospital stay.

The research was carried out by Dr Simon Jones, chief statistician at Dr Foster Intelligence and senior research fellow at the National Nursing Research Unit at King’s College, London, and Professor Peter Griffiths, director of the unit.

They set out to examine what factors influenced outcomes in English hospitals, with specific reference to staffing levels – looking at a total of 147 acute trusts with A&E departments. They compared national hospital activity data for day case and inpatients in England between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008 with the latest workforce data from the NHS Information Centre, published last week.

According to this data, of the 49 trusts with the lowest nurse per bed ratios, 43% are rated as having a high hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) – that is to say a patient mortality rate that is higher than expected, based on a typical English hospital. Additionally, among the 49 trusts with a high nurse per bed ratio, 43% had a low HSMR.

Analysis suggests trusts with a low nurse per bed ratio were roughly twice as likely as those with a high nurse to bed ratio to have a high HSMR rating. This is illustrated by the larger number of ‘green’ trusts in the bottom half of the table and the larger number of ‘red’ trusts towards the top.

As might be expected Mid Staffordshire is ranked among the 30 worst performers on nurse per bed ratios. Interestingly in 2007, before the trust had started to react to concerns from Healthcare Commission investigators, Mid Staffordshire would have been ranked as poorly as eighth worst for nurse per bed ratios, using the same statistical model.

Dr Jones explains that his model ‘indicates general trends’ and that there are other factors that also need to be taken into account when interpreting the data. He noted that trusts with low staff to bed ratios did not automatically have high HSMRs. For example, Northumbria Healthcare Trust had the second lowest staff to bed ratio in the country but actually had a very good HSMR. ‘You need to know the number of GPs per 1,000 of the population, the number of qualified staff per bed, and if it’s in London,’ he said.

‘To some extent you need to know all of that in order to conclude why it’s a bad performer,’ he added. ‘You could imagine somewhere that’s a very low nursing staff ratio that might have a phenomenally high GP per 1,000 population, and so the two counteract each other.’

It is, therefore, low nurse levels combined with poor counter-balancing factors, such as a low concentration of GPs locally, that might be an early warning of staff shortages linked to patient mortality rates, that warrants investigation.

However, while other factors can have an impact, the model shows that by far the strongest indicator of trust performance is nursing and qualified staffing levels.

Dr Jones said that the difference in staffing ‘explains about 36% of variation in trust performance on the HSMR’. ‘The rest is explained by other factors, for example, having more nurses is not actually enough – they also actually have to work effectively,’ he said.

Additionally, the model shows that it is not just mortality rates that are affected by staffing levels but also the number of ‘very long stay patients’ – those whose length of stay in hospital exceeds the length of stay of 75% of patients in England with a similar diagnosis and admission type in a certain year. Very long stays have been previously identified as an indicator of ‘deviations from normal care’.

The model suggests that in trusts with 1.4 or fewer nurses per bed, 25% of patients are likely to be very long-stayers, compared with less than 23% in trusts with 1.5 or more nurses per bed.

Although the difference may look small, the relationship is statistically strong, according to Dr Jones. ‘As the number of nurses goes up, the percentage of long-stayers goes down,’ he said.

This new work is significant for a number of reasons. US research has previously reported that nursing levels have a significant impact on mortality but analysts have pointed out that the large differences in staff skill-mix between the US healthcare system and the NHS have made it hard to transfer the conclusions to the UK with confidence.

Previous UK studies have attempted to identify the factors that most likely explain differences in outcomes between NHS hospitals – of which two are probably the significant and best known.

Back in 1999, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, from the Dr Foster Unit at Imperial College London, looked at hospital death rates over four years. He and his team concluded that, rather than the number of nurses, it was the number of medical staff that was most significant.

‘The ratios of doctors to head of population served, both in hospital and in general practice, seem to be critical determinants of standardised hospital death rates; the higher these ratios the lower the death rates in both cases,’ they wrote in the BMJ.

A second study, led by Professor Anne Marie Rafferty, head of the Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery at King’s College compared outcomes in general, orthopaedic and vascular surgery with nursing levels at 30 trusts. Published in 2007 in the International Journal of Nursing Studies, it found a ‘large and consistent effect of nurse staffing on mortality outcomes in surgical patients’. However it did not include medical staff and so did not offer comparison of effect between professions.

This latest study aimed to closely follow the structure of Professor Jarman’s original study for ease of comparison of results over time.

It takes into account the many changes that have affected the NHS since Professor Jarman’s work in 1999, including the introduction of enhanced roles for nurses it offers some comparison between the effect of nursing.

Perhaps the key finding was that the most significant factor affecting a hospital’s HSMR was the number of ‘qualified’ staff – either doctors or nurses – per bed.

‘We found that the number of qualified staff, rather than the number of doctors is the best predictor of a hospital’s mortality,’ the authors said. Much of the change could be explained by modernising medical careers and enhanced roles for nurses, they suggest.

Could this then be the first proof that trusts should think of employing more nurses in enhanced roles, and possibly less medical staff? ‘It’s interesting to note that ratio of nurses to doctors was not found to be a significant factor. One possible interpretation of this fact is that trusts can make a limited substitution of doctors by nurses without reducing their HSMR,’ they said. ‘However this interpretation should be treated with caution,’ they added.

Dr Jones emphasises that the model can be further improved and there are many other aspects of hospital care that need to be analysed. He points out that the work is ‘ongoing’.


Related files

Readers' comments (13)

  • I am sorry to say that this report comes as no suprise to any clinical ward based nurse.In light of the Mid Staffs report I would have thought that this dithering goverment could have at least made staffing ratios part of the quality metrix.
    I wonder why they stopped short?.
    Each year the nursing establishment is reviewed and budgets cut by up to 30%.Leaverss are never replaced , there are no posts for newly qualified nurses.
    As we all know health care only comes to the fore in the run up to an election.
    I'm sorry to say that I think the Mid Staffs issue is the tip of the iceberg.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the above comment, staff nurses cannot assess patients as they are looking after 9-14 acutely ill patients at a time. It is a nonsense, we need more ground staff and far less middle management and more action from hospital trust boards of directors, because that is what they are paid to do, problem solve!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the comments above and I know that it is only the tip of the iceberg, as do all nurses.
    Whilst a lack of nurses and doctors may well contribute to the deaths of patients, even more responsible are the government directives and the puppets in charge of the hospitals that allow them to be implemented without any consultation with staff.
    I met a ward sister on an acute medical ward last week - highly qualified, years of experience - sitting in the office desperately trying to find staff. She informed me that she had had to fill 90 shifts in the previous 3 weeks. A waste of her talents and her time and an indicator of the lack of staff. Why don't those with the power ask her and all other ward sisters what staff ratios would work?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This study is interesting, even though it is not new.
    Therefore this raise many (ethical) issues, such as: when will the UK stop recruiting nurses abroad? Especially from developing countries, which are already short of medical/nursing staffs. Recruiting nursing staffs from developing countries put further pressures on those countries' health systems. Thus affecting directly population and patients health as well as the economy of those countries.
    This is a human right issue, where nursing are often trade as a good (i.e the Philippines).
    If it is a way out of poverty for some nurses to work in the UK. I belive the UK government should be also much more aware of the consequences of migration of health care workers.
    Maggie (London)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I totally agree, with the comments made regarding nurse to patient ratios, as with the readers above I have chosen to remain anonymous, not because I don't want to address this issue, but I cannot be cited as a trouble maker.
    As a nurse on a surgical ward, I look after 10+ patients regularly (our establishment states we should have a maximum of 8 patients per nurse), we are told to 'manage'. On some occasions, I think that 8 patients per nurse is too high, to give good quality care. On a daily basis I question whether we have 'managed' I believe that we have not.
    Care is suffering, patients are dying, how many more patients have to die before something gets done, how as regular nurses can we get our trusts to wake up and smell the roses???
    As the Government gives Hospital Trusts more and more targets to meet, we get more and more work to do and no extra staff to assist. If we omit to complete our paperwork we get slated from a high level, but omitting paperwork to spend time with our patients is more important, if I stopped caring for my patients to complete the endless paperwork my patients could potentially become very sick very quickly, that is the calibre of patients we care for on our ward.
    The unions are neither use nor ornament, we are told to put together a collective grievance, and then what.....
    Is recruitment an issue I ask myself, retention definately is, I would not recommend nursing to anyone if they have to try to 'manage' as I do.
    When will we nurses get the recognition we need from both Trust Board and the Government, we know there is a huge problem at ward level, and its not just the Trusts mentioned in this report, ours is not mentioned, so what?? We put on a good show for the HCC, but that was all it was, a show, a good one.
    Congratulations to all ward based nurses out there, we take the blame for both Trust and Government negligence

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with all the above. why do these reports always "find" the obvious?

    Short staffed wards have been a problem for years, and therefore affecting the quality of care, ask the average ward based staff nurse, instead of wasting more money on aimless reports! Shortage in staffing is now embedded within the nursing psyche.

    They will even teach it at university level, whereby a scenario they will use, will ask "The ward is short staffed".....what are you going to do etc? Both the PCT's and Government know about short staffing, but won't do anything about it, because they both want to get away with what they can in terms of finance. The example of Mid Staffs was only highlighted because it got so out of control that they were found out, otherwise I'm sorry to say, they would have carried on as normal. Nurses need to stand up together nation wide and stop this! We need some pride put back into the profession and let nurses take control, not the politicians and complete idiots who run the trusts! The nursing profession has been walked over for too long now!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All these comments above are spot on.

    Unfortunately mids staff got found out. Maybe if the Health care commision did spot checks they would find a very deeper truth - not on your nelly. I believe the government and hcc know exactly what is going on but cannot manage the situation hence the reason all our trusts know when their coming and how the miraculous cleaning begins, matrons flapping every where, staff brought in to work.

    I couldn't believe when my trust got a very good in their review. Our targets are fiddled constantly from a A&E point of view. They have made annexs within A&E and put them on the computer as the admission ward so it "looks" like the patient got there within 4 hours!

    I am waiting for the day floor staff are asked there opinion. I sometimes feel sorry for the Chief Executives because I think alot of what goes on within the trust is hidden from them from middle management.

    Staffing ratios should be put in place - have the government already realised though that this is simply not possible?

    That there is not enough nurses?
    Why aren't health care assistants who have worked in the trusts years given the oppurtunity and support to be seconded.
    Could be one solution to getting competent staff that are much needed!

    We could all go on forever.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with all the above comments and wish to add that it is no better in the Primary Care.
    Politicians assure us that money is being pumped into the Community; unfortunately it's what is then done with it that causes the problems. Instead of 'throwing-up' these white elephants (A.K.A- 'Darzi Polyclinics) the money would be better utilised employing more clinical staff to cope with all the care in the community the government sees as the future of the NHS. The main reason for promoting this strategy is obvious - hospitals are so short staffed they'll have to reduce the number of patients by sending them all home!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wasn't surprised by these finding at all. We are terribly understaffed at our medium secure unit, to the point where staff's lives are being risked.

    And they wonder why their staff turnover is so high? It's extremely stressful looking after so many ill and potentially dangerous patients on 2 or 3 staff per ward, and thats on a good night/day! And with no breaks either, staff are falling asleep, suffering from exhaustion and making errors from tiredness. The NHS need to shape up, no bursary will cure what is going on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This isn't news! Its blindingly obvious that fewer nurses have adverse affects on patient care.

    Sorry, but the findings of this sudy belong in the "no Sh*t Sherlock" box!

    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.

Related Jobs