MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402510000 · doi:10.2196/59619

Calculating Optimal Patient to Nursing Capacity: Comparative Analysis of Traditional and New Methods

2024· article· en· W4402510000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Ware, Terri L. Blumke, Peter Hoover, David M. Arreola

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPreprintNursingMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Optimal nurse staffing levels have been shown to impact patients' prognoses and safety, as well as staff burnout. The predominant method for calculating staffing levels has been patient-to-nurse (P/N) ratios and nursing hours per patient day. However, both methods fall short of addressing the dynamic nature of staffing needs that often fluctuate throughout the day as patients' clinical status changes and new patients are admitted or discharged from the unit. Objective: In this evaluation, the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS) piloted a new dynamic bed count calculation in an effort to target optimal staffing levels every hour to provide greater temporal resolution on nurse staffing levels within the Veterans Health Administration. Methods: The dynamic bed count uses elements from both the nursing hours per patient day and P/N ratio to calculate current and target staffing levels, every hour, while balancing across nurse types (registered nurses to nurse assistants) to provide improved temporal insight into staff allocation. The dynamic bed count was compared with traditional P/N ratio methods of calculating patient capacity at the VAPAHCS, to assess optimal patient capacity within their acute care ward from January 1, 2023, through May 25, 2023. Descriptive statistics summarized patient capacity variables across the intensive care unit (ICU), medical-surgical ICU, and 3 acute care units. Student t tests (2-tailed) were used to analyze differences between patient capacity measures. Results: Hourly analysis of patient capacity information displayed how the dynamic bed count provided improved temporal resolution on patient capacity. Comparing the dynamic bed count to the P/N ratio, we found the patient capacity, as determined by the P/N ratio, was, on average, higher than that of the dynamic bed count across VAPAHCS acute care units and the medical-surgical ICU (P<.001). For example, in acute care unit 3C, the average dynamic bed count was 21.6 (SD 4.2) compared with a P/N ratio of 28.6 (SD 3.2). This suggests that calculating patient capacity using P/N ratios alone could lead to units taking on more patients than what the dynamic bed count suggests the unit can optimally handle. Conclusions: As a new patient capacity calculation, the dynamic bed count provided additional details and timely information about clinical staffing levels, patient acuity, and patient turnover. Implementing this calculation into the management process has the potential to empower departments to further optimize staffing and patient care.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207