MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103747628 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzs009

Associations between rationing of nursing care and inpatient mortality in Swiss hospitals

2012· article· en· W2103747628 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesamt für Gesundheit
KeywordsMedicineStaffingRationingAcute careLogistic regressionNursingNursing careInpatient careEmergency medicineFamily medicineHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between inpatient mortality and implicit rationing of nursing care, the quality of nurse work environments and the patient-to-nurse staffing ratio in Swiss acute care hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional correlational design. SETTING: Eight Swiss acute care hospitals examined in a survey-based study and 71 comparison institutions. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 165 862 discharge abstracts from patients treated in the 8 RICH Nursing Study (the Rationing of Nursing Care in Switzerland Study) hospitals and 760 608 discharge abstracts from patients treated in 71 Swiss acute care hospitals offering similar services and maintaining comparable patient volumes to the RICH Nursing hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The dependent variable was inpatient mortality. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the effects of the independent hospital-level measures. RESULTS: Patients treated in the hospital with the highest rationing level were 51% more likely to die than those in peer institutions (adjusted OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.34-1.70). Patients treated in the study hospitals with higher nurse work environment quality ratings had a significantly lower likelihood of death (adjusted OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.97) and those treated in the hospital with the highest measured patient-to-nurse ratio (10:1) had a 37% higher risk of death (adjusted OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.24-1.52) than those in comparison institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of rationing may reflect care conditions that place hospital patients at risk of negative outcomes and thus deserve attention in future hospital outcomes research studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.408 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it