Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9697490

Work sampling. Assessing nursing efficiency.

V V Upenieks
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Assessing and evaluating work sampling helps nurse managers obtain a clear vision of how nurses use their time. An analysis of work flow furnishes nurse leaders with an array of information that, in turn, provides steps toward work redesign strategies and improved productivity. One hospital's experience is described.

Explore related subjects

Efficiency, OrganizationalHumansNursing Administration ResearchNursing Staff, HospitalNursing, SupervisoryOrganizational CultureTime and Motion StudiesWorkloadJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V V Upenieks. 1998. Work sampling. Assessing nursing efficiency.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9697490/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

[The Trauma Registry of the German Society of Trauma Surgery as a basis for interclinical quality management. A multicenter study of the German Society of Trauma Surgery].

Based on the "Trauma Registry" of the German Society of Trauma Surgery, an interclinical quality management (QM) system was implemented. The principles of the QM system as well as the differences in the quality of outcome and treatment are presented. The analysis uses the data on 2,069 severely injured (ISS = 22 +/- 14) patients from 20 hospitals collected prospectively and anonymously between 2/93 and 12/97. Outcome quality was analyzed by the TRISS method and Z-statistics. The Z-value of the whole series was -0.24. There were three hospitals with more than 150 patients that had a Ps value calculated by the TRISS method. Clinic A had a good (-2.49), clinic B an average (-0.3) and clinic C (3.62) an adverse Z-value. The assessment of treatment quality was performed by criteria concerning both preclinical and acute clinical phases. Clinic C had a prolonged preclinical treatment time (90 min vs 62 min in clinic A) for severely injured (ISS > 15) patients. At the same time, the preclinical intubation rate for severe thoracic trauma (AIS > 3) was lower (44 %) in clinic C than in A (62 %). With 14 min clinic A had the shortest time until basic radiological and ultrasound diagnostics were completed (X-rays of chest and pelvis and abdominal ultrasound) in cases of severe blunt trauma (ISS > 15), compared to 54 min in clinic B or 31 min in clinic C. Also, cranial computed tomography for severe traumatic brain injury (GCS < 9) was applied significantly faster in clinic A (after 36 min) than in clinic C (after 62 min). Delayed diagnoses were defined as the difference between the ISS at discharge and the ISS at completion of diagnostics in the emergency department; this criterion was met best by clinic A with an ISS difference of two patients compared to five in clinic B and four in clinic C. The hospitals participating in the Trauma Registry receive an annual analysis of their preclinical and acute clinical performance. Thus, every hospital can analyze and improve the quality of treatment based on reliable data that show which parts of the process have to be optimized. Furthermore, the data allow a comparison of the average and optimal results of the whole series.

Efficiency, Organizational↗
PubMed2000

An evaluation of the care of patients with minor injuries in emergency settings.

This paper describes a study which evaluated three models of emergency care for patients with minor injuries; a traditional Accident and Emergency (A&E) department where patients with minor injuries were seen by senior house officers and nurses working together; a Minor Accident Treatment Service (MATS) unit, located in a main A&E, where patients with minor injuries were seen by Emergency Nurse Practitioners (ENPs) and a nurse-led Minor Injuries Unit (MIU), where patients with minor injuries were also seen by ENPs. Information about waiting times and length of stay was recorded by the researchers and patients were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire at the end of their stay. A sample of 181 patients were included in the study (57 in the traditional A&E, 57 in the MATS unit and 67 in the nurse-led MIU). Patients in the traditional A&E waited significantly longer to be seen than patients seen by an ENP, by an average of 40 minutes, and spent an average of 33 minutes longer in the department. ENPs spent an average of 12 minutes longer than doctors undertaking the first consultation where patients' needs were assessed and documented. Patients were very satisfied with care given by all health professionals. Those seen by ENPs were significantly more likely to have been given health advice and information, written instructions on discharge and told who to contact if they needed further advice. They were found to be subsequently significantly less worried about their health than patients seen in the traditional A&E. It is suggested that although ENPs spent longer with patients, this resulted in an improvement in the quality and depth of information and advice provided.

Efficiency, Organizational↗