Team or primary nursing care?

K Chavigny; A Lewis

PubMed · 6567848

Team or primary nursing care?

Abstract

This study was undertaken to help nursing administration make policy decisions regarding the initiation of primary care nursing and the need to hire RNS. The work involved an experimental design using 11 units in a 350-bed facility. The results show no significant differences between the two methods regarding quality, cost, job satisfaction, patient satisfaction, or patient education. Moreover, the 16-hour model produces more stress and more sick leave days than team nursing. It is also apparent that apart from salaries, the cost of nursing care is a function of the diagnoses of the patients in the hospital, which may account for some of the inconsistencies found in the literature. If the ratio of RN to non-RN staff had been increased, the results might have been different; however, Giovanetti's comparison study of primary and team nursing, which considered the same factors but used a 70-percent-RN staff, produced similar results. It appears that individual RN's dedication and preparation for patient care may be more important than the method used to organize that care. Research to determine how to select the most appropriate nurse for a specific role would be a more productive approach to assist policy determination in the future.

Explore related subjects

Costs and Cost Analysis Hospital Bed Capacity, 300 to 499 Humans Nursing Staff, Hospital Nursing, Team Personnel Staffing and Scheduling Primary Nursing Quality of Health Care Random Allocation United States Comparative Study Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

K Chavigny, A Lewis. Team or primary nursing care?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6567848/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Illegal aliens are not entitled to federally funded organ transplants.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

PubMed2007

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

PubMed2007

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗