Back

Staffing levels and hospital mortality in England: a national panel study using routinely collected data

Rubbo, B.; Saville, C.; Dall'Ora, C.; Turner, L. Y.; Jones, J.; Ball, J.; Culliford, D.; Griffiths, P.

2021-12-08 nursing
10.1101/2021.12.08.21267407 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMost studies investigating the association between hospital staff levels and mortality have focused on single professional groups, in particular nursing. However, single staff group studies might overestimate effects or neglect important contributions to patient safety from other staff groups. We aimed to examine the association between multiple clinical staff levels and case-mix adjusted patient mortality in English hospitals. Methods and FindingsThis retrospective observational study used routinely available data from all 138 National Health Service hospital trusts that provided general acute adult services in England between 2015 and 2019. Standardised mortality rates were derived from the Summary Hospital level Mortality Indicator dataset. Estimates for the effect of clinical staffing from the single staff models were generally higher than estimates from models with multiple staff groups. Using a multilevel negative binomial random effects model, hospitals with higher levels of medical and allied healthcare professional (AHP) staff had significantly lower mortality rates (1.04, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.06, and 1.04, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.06, respectively), while those with higher support staff had higher mortality rates (0.85, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.91 for nurse support, and 1.00, 95%CI 0.99 to 1.00 for AHP support), after adjusting for multiple staff groups and hospital characteristics. Estimates of staffing levels on mortality were higher in magnitude between- than within-hospitals, which were not statistically significant in a within-between random effects model. ConclusionsWe showed the importance of considering multiple staff groups simultaneously when examining the association between hospital mortality and clinical staffing levels. Despite not being included in previous workforce studies, AHP and AHP support levels have a significant impact on hospital mortality. As the main variation was seen between-as opposed to within-hospitals, structural recruitment and retention difficulties coupled with financial constraints could contribute to the effect of staffing levels on hospital mortality.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
29.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.2%
3
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
6
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
7
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
8
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
9
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
10
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
13
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
14
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
15
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
16
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
17
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%