Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10827626

Nursing workload: an unquantifiable entity.

M Hughes
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the increasingly prominent drives towards cost containment and efficiency nursing is under pressure to justify its value to healthcare. On the surface nursing workload assessment methods would appear to offer a means to quantify the nursing input to patient care. AIMS: To examine the validity of nursing workload methods with respect to nursing practice and nursing knowledge. FINDINGS: Previous studies and the conclusions of subject reviews have cast doubt on the reliability and validity of most methods and indicate that they have no clear theoretical base. CONCLUSION: It appears that nursing is more concerned with knowledge processing and nurses' intentions than just with the activities of caring. It is suggested that patients control the time element of nursing care. The need for nursing workload information, despite its validity problems, is discussed and a pragmatic solution is suggested.

Explore related subjects

Diagnosis-Related GroupsEmpathyHumansJob DescriptionMotivationNursing Administration ResearchNursing Staff, HospitalPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingReproducibility of ResultsTime and Motion StudiesWorkloadJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Hughes. 1999. Nursing workload: an unquantifiable entity.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2834.1999.00148.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗