Effect of the hospital nursing environment on patient mortality: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research has examined the effect of the structure of health systems on health outcomes, but not how outcomes are affected by the nursing environments in hospitals. Our objective was to gather, critically appraise and synthesize all relevant primary research on the effect of the nursing environment on patient mortality. METHODS: Five electronic bibliographic databases were searched from their beginning through to May/June 2001, and Medline and CINAHL were updated to March 2004, using pre-determined search strategies and inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they met pre-determined criteria, reporting primary data both on a hospital environment and patient mortality. Methodological rigour was appraised using accepted criteria for the evaluation of research protocols, including case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: This paper focuses on 27 identified studies that investigated the impact of one or more attributes of the nursing environment on patient mortality. Nineteen studies found an association between one or more unfavourable attributes and higher mortality. There was considerable variability in attribute and outcome measures, settings and research quality across studies. This precluded statistical pooling of results. CONCLUSIONS: On balance, current evidence indicates that social and environmental attributes of hospital nursing practice have an effect on the outcomes of care. Before optimal practice settings can be designed, further research of greater rigour is needed to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms that link the nursing environment to patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".