Just Say “YES” to Nurse Staffing Laws

I wrote an article called Just Say “NO” to Nurse Staffing Laws in which I discussed why mandated nurse-to-patient ratios may not be such a good idea. In this article I present the case FOR staffing laws. Despite the financial side effects, saving lives should be our priority. A well-educated nursing workforce has the ability to bring about legislature with the flexibility to support patient and nurse safety. Nurses General Nursing Article

In my Just Say "No" article, I listed the evidence from California against mandated nurse-to-patient ratios, the only state to have a safe staffing law. Despite a reduction in patient mortality, California hospitals are struggling with the cost burden of mandated ratios, and nurses are busier than ever, just not with direct patient care.

All you have to do is read the articles and comments posted on allnurses for a few minutes to confirm what you already suspect. We need some kind of change. A recent New York Times article reported on thousands of nurses on strike in California, Arizona, and Florida. They were striking for better patient care, improved working conditions and higher pay. Their No. 1 demand: better nurse-to-patient ratios. In a survey of nurses, only 20% felt staffing levels were safe.1

Rules and Regulations

Fourteen states currently have official regulations for staffing ratios: CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, RI, TX, VT, and WA. Seven states require nurse-driven staffing committees: CT, IL, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA. California is the only state with a law that requires minimum nurse to patient ratios to be maintained at all times by unit. Massachusetts passed a law specific to the ICU that requires a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse to patient ratio depending on stability of the patient. Minnesota requires a CNO or designee to develop a core staffing plan with input from other nurses, similar to Joint Commission standards. Five states require some form of disclosure and/or public reporting: IL, NJ, NY, RI, VT. New Mexico has asked stakeholders to recommend staffing standards to the legislature. The department of health will collect information about the hospitals that adopt recommended standards and report the cost of implementing oversight programs.2

Federal regulation 42CFR 482.23(b) requires with Medicare certification to "have adequate numbers of licensed registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed. There must be supervisory and staff personnel for each department or nursing unit to ensure, when needed, the immediate availability of a registered nurse for bedside care of any patient." However, no figures are mandated. Each state determines how to meet the Medicare requirement.3

Illinois passed the Nurse Staffing by Patient Acuity Act in 2007. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association cites the law as sufficient for governing nurse staging. But the law isn’t enforceable. Though it requires a committee to be formed to make up staffing plans based on acuity, less than a third of respondents to a 2018 survey by Nurses Take DC said their hospital had a staffing committee. Of the hospitals that did, less than half include enough nurses, or committee recommendations weren’t followed.4

The Price of Nursing

I’m going to refute the argument that a shortage of nurses will cause hospitals to close units or limit services if mandatory ratios are enacted. At issue here is that there are plenty of nurses. In Arizona 37,000 licensed, active RNs are not currently working as nurses.5 Why is that? The issue isn’t that there aren’t enough nurses, the issue is how poorly nurses are treated. A survey in 2014 demonstrated that nearly 1 in 5 nurses leave the first job within a year, and 1 in 3 leave within the first two years.6

Nurse turnover costs hospitals a lot of money, so why wouldn’t they want to keep us happy? Because we are expensive. Nurses make up almost 40% of operating costs for healthcare facilities. Hospitals would prefer to find a less expensive way to improve patient outcomes.7

California paints a vivid picture of this problem. Critics of AB394 were concerned about its increased financial burden on hospitals, especially safety-net hospitals, to maintain a mandated ratio. Economists found that the mandated ratio resulted in financial pressure on hospitals and declining operating margins in CA hospitals compared with other states.8

Current Nurse-to-Patient Ratios

What is the national benchmark when it comes to nurse-patient staff ratios? Pinning down a specific number is hard to do, given the legal vagaries from state to state. California RN-to-Patient staffing ratios range anywhere from 1:2 in intensive/critical care, PACU and L&D, to 1:6 in postpartum women only, med surg and psychiatric.3

Aiken and colleagues found that in England, the average patient-to-nurse ratios for all hospitals was 8.6 but varied 5.6 patients-per-nurse to 11.5 patients per nurse. They found a similarly wide variation in patient-to-nurse ratios across hospitals in every country studied.9

The Evidence

In 2002, Aiken, Clarke, Sloane, Sochalski, and Silber found that adding an additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7%increase in the likelihood of dying within 30 days of admission and a 7% increase in death resulting from a complication.9

In 2007, Kane and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 28 studies. They found that increased RN staffing resulted in lower hospital mortality and adverse patient events. They hypothesized that patient and hospital characteristics, including the hospital commitment to quality care contributed to the causal pathway.10

In 2008, Aiken analyzed data from 10,184 nurses and 232,343 surgical patients in 168 Pennsylvania hospitals. When staffing ratios were optimized, nurses reported more positive job experiences and fewer concerns with care quality. Patients had significantly lower risks of death and failure to rescue in hospitals with better care environments.9

CMS began the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program under the Affordable Care Act in 2012. At the time, researchers found that higher levels of RN staffing were associated with lower readmission rates.8

In a systematic review of 43 articles, Lang et al. (2013) showed better nurse staffing is associated with lower failure-to-rescue rates, lower inpatient mortality rates and shorter hospital stays.11

In 2018, Driscoll et al looked at 35 studies in a metareview and found higher staffing levels associated with reduced mortality, medication errors, ulcers, restraint use, infections, pneumonia, higher aspirin use and greater number of patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes. They looked at 175,755 patients from six studies and found that high nurse staffing levels decreased the risk of death in the hospital by 14%.12

Aiken has looked at patient outcomes in both California, which passed its ratio law in 1999, and Queensland, Australia, which passed one in 2015. She said the result for patients has been fewer complications, fewer infections, fewer injuries — and even lower mortality.9

The Solution

The American Nurses Association has a position statement on safe nurse staffing, stating, “We all agree that there should be safe staffing. Safe staffing is essential to patient and nurse satisfaction and for safe patient outcomes. What we need is evidence of what those safe staffing practices are. Eliminating unsafe practices will improve our healthcare system.” The ANA supports that appropriate staffing levels reduce mortality rates, length of patient stay, number of preventable events like falls and infections.7

The ANA states that fixed staffing levels are problematic. Staff levels should depend upon:

  • Patient complexity, acuity or stability.
  • Number of admissions, discharges and transfers.
  • Professional nurses’ and other staff members’ skill levels and expertise.
  • Physical space and layout of the nursing unit.
  • Availability of technical support and other resources.

The ANA supports a legislative model in which nurses create flexible staffing plans for their unit. What is needed is greater nurse involvement.

Take action by writing Congress to support safe staffing.

Share your story about being an everyday advocate with Janet Haebler, Senior Associate Director, State Government Affairs, [email protected], (301-628-5111).

You may also be interested in The Safe Patient Limits Act (H.R. 2581/S. 1357). This bill is currently sitting with committees in the senate and house. The bill sets limits on the number of patients a nurse can be assigned, depending on the hospital unit. Any facility that fails to comply could be subject to a fine of up to $25,000 for each day it is out of compliance. The bill factors in a plan for acuity adjustments that need to be made for patients and staffing. The goal of Nurses Take DC is to get the legislation passed to the Senate and House of Representatives where they can be put up for a YES vote. For more information, click NURSESTAKEDC.1


REFERENCES

1. NursesTakeDC

2. Update on nursing staff ratios

3. The Importance of the Optimal Nurse-to-Patient Ratio

4. Why mandated nurse-to-patient ratios have become one of the most controversial ideas in health care Tung, L. (Nov 29, 2019).

5. Nurses in Four States Strike to Push for Better Patient Care Ortiz, A. (Sept. 20, 2019).

6. Nearly 1-in-5 nurses leaves first job within a year, survey finds Becker’s Hospital Review (Sept 5, 2014).

7. American Nurses Association (n.d.). Nurse Staffing Crisis

8. Effects of Public Reporting Legislation of Nurse Staffing: A Trend Analysis deCordova, P. B. & Riman, K. (2019).

9. Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Lake, E. T. & Cheney, T. (2018). Effects of Hospital Care Environment on Patient Mortality and Nurse Outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration, 38(5), 223-229.

10. Kane, R. L., Shamliyan, T. A., Mueller, C., Duval, S. & Wilt, T. J. (2007). The Association of Registered Nurse Staffing Levels and Patient Outcomes. Medical Care, 45(12), 1195-1204.

11. Lang, T. A., Romano, P. S., Hodge, M., Kravitz, R. L. & Olsen, V. (2004). Nurse-Patient Ratios. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 34(7/8), 326-337.

12. Driscoll, A. et al. (2018). The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 17(1), 6-22.

Specializes in Critical Care.

The government is more corrupt than big business. If it weren’t for regulations, healthcare would be cheaper. For instance I could buy epipens en mass where they are cheap, and sell them for a small profit, making a big profit all said and done. Supplying people with cheaper epipens in thIs country. But there are regulations that prevent me from doing this. Regulations prevent undercutting. Undercutting is the key to a competitive, free market.

Specializes in Critical Care.
13 minutes ago, ArmyRntoMD said:

The government is more corrupt than big business. If it weren’t for regulations, healthcare would be cheaper. For instance I could buy epipens en mass where they are cheap, and sell them for a small profit, making a big profit all said and done. Supplying people with cheaper epipens in thIs country. But there are regulations that prevent me from doing this. Regulations prevent undercutting. Undercutting is the key to a competitive, free market.

That's basically true, if it weren't for regulations you could buy something labelled "EpiPen" from a supplier that's filling old ball-point pens with sugar water and make a killing selling them, in more ways than one. Or instead you could produce and sell a product which can be shown to be a reasonably reliable product, which is something regulations don't prevent.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Regulations increase costs. Has anyone here read any of Milton Friedman’s works? The more regulations that must be met, the more competition is prevented and the more that the corporations that meet the regulations can charge.

Specializes in Critical Care.
7 minutes ago, ArmyRntoMD said:

Regulations increase costs. Has anyone here read any of Milton Friedman’s works? The more regulations that must be met, the more competition is prevented and the more that the corporations that meet the regulations can charge.

Yes, a functioning EpiPen that actually contains epinephrine costs more than an old ball-point pen filled with sugar water, are you arguing that we would be better off if the EpiPen market included faux-Epipens?

Milton Friedman argued that Medical Licenses shouldn't exist and that there should be no requirements for who can claim to be a Physician. I don't think I'd agree that lowering the bar to the floor "increases competition" in a positive way.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Anyone should be able to practice medicine legally. This is true. Optional licenses should be granted for those who go above and beyond, and people will know these people are certified. Just because someone offers to do brain surgery doesn’t mean anyone would let him do it to them. If someone wants a person to operate on them, and that person agrees, whose business is it?

We already do this. How many hospitals don’t strive to achieve JACHOs blessing? It isn’t required by law, but there are benefits.

Reputation is very important in a society.

Specializes in Critical Care.
24 minutes ago, ArmyRntoMD said:

Anyone should be able to practice medicine legally. This is true. Optional licenses should be granted for those who go above and beyond, and people will know these people are certified. Just because someone offers to do brain surgery doesn’t mean anyone would let him do it to them. If someone wants a person to operate on them, and that person agrees, whose business is it?

We already do this. How many hospitals don’t strive to achieve JACHOs blessing? It isn’t required by law, but there are benefits.

Reputation is very important in a society.

Given the massive costs associated with poor quality care, I don't agree that allowing the quality of care to drop significantly below the already fairly low bar will result in less cost.

The Joint Commission is one option for attaining regulatory compliance, but whatever option a hospital chooses they still must meet basic regulatory requirements to describe themselves as a hospital to the public, they are still free to provide relatively bad care or really good care, so long as they stay above a minimum bar of quality, which is reasonable. There are countries where there are little if any requirements to be a physician or hospital, and I don't think Americans are really clamoring to have a Myanmar or Sierra-Leone quality healthcare system.

In a truly free market, consumers are able to exert their influence as much as providers of a product or service, and I don't think it's unreasonable that generally consumers would like to know if their brain surgeon has some idea of what they are doing and if they killed the last, and only, 30 patients they operated on, that's the purpose of licensing.

Specializes in Critical Care.

I don’t disagree with any of that, except I don’t think the government should be able to tell us what to do with our bodies. If we want to allow someone to provide us care, that’s our own business. Of course anyone that’s not a complete moron would ensure it’s someone competent.

i think that’s why we have so many stupid patients. Drives me up the wall when I go to give meds and when I try to explain what they’re taking they say “I don’t care just give it to me”. They’re complacent because they feel like the system will protect them. Pure idiocy, just like when ppl overdose on Tylenol because it’s over the counter.

Specializes in Critical Care.
25 minutes ago, ArmyRntoMD said:

I don’t disagree with any of that, except I don’t think the government should be able to tell us what to do with our bodies. If we want to allow someone to provide us care, that’s our own business. Of course anyone that’s not a complete moron would ensure it’s someone competent.

i think that’s why we have so many stupid patients. Drives me up the wall when I go to give meds and when I try to explain what they’re taking they say “I don’t care just give it to me”. They’re complacent because they feel like the system will protect them. Pure idiocy, just like when ppl overdose on Tylenol because it’s over the counter.

I don't disagree with that either, at least in that people should be free to choose whatever option they want, including bad options. But people should be making bad choices because they have the option, not because it's the only option, which is what I believe an oversight-free healthcare system would become. That doesn't mean there aren't bad regulations however.

Which brings us back to the thread's topic (ie before we get in trouble for our tangent), I don't think regulating staffing ratios are particularly good regulations. If the purpose is to provide some basic reasonable expectation of quality of care based on nurse workload, then nurse-to-patient ratios are far from an ideal measure of nurse workload.

What I think would be better would be the combination of 3 laws;

  • Hospitals would be required to ensure that patients have a defined threshold of nursing care devoted to them, defining that threshold is the tricky part.
  • Nurses would be legally protected to make workload prioritization decisions based solely on appropriate nursing judgement.
  • Hospitals would be prohibited from utilizing mandatory overtime, including staying over after the scheduled end of a shift.

A hospital's incentive then would be to effectively manage nurse workload so that reasonably good nursing care is ensured; they would have to ensure that nurses can get to a certain point in their prioritized workload, without manipulating that prioritization or using overtime. And they would be competing with other hospitals to provide the best nursing workload management at the best cost, which is how a (well regulated) free market should work.

On 1/4/2020 at 9:58 PM, ArmyRntoMD said:

Staffing laws are unnecessary because you have people such as myself that will fill in and take those spots. We have no unions in Louisiana and somehow we have proper staffing. I’ve never had over 2 patients in the ICU and never had more than 4 on step down. Somehow without unions or laws... hmm.

Former cardiovascular PCU RN in TX here. Our ratios were "mandated" to be taken down from 1: 4-5 to 1:3 when we officially became a PCU, however most nights we were flexed up to 4 patients. Fine, but even our unit supervisors said our floor was an ICU without vents or ECMO. It wasn't uncommon to get a fresh heart transplant from ICU on multiple drips, a returning LVAD with multiple low-flow alarms, a total-care and high fall risk elderly patient, and a fresh CABG patient going into A-fib RVR at 2 am all in one shift. Management tried to spread the acuity among nurses, but sometimes our floor was just that sick.

Yes we got the numbers fixed, but does that still sound safe?

Specializes in Critical Care.

You didn’t have vents on step down?

When I work PCU we are 1:3-1:4 and typically have at least one but usually 2 vents.

I don’t see what the big deal is- I prefer vents because you already have an airway.

Your example also shows why numbers mean nothing. I’ve had 4 on PCU and had an easy day and had 2 and been running like mad.

Specializes in Safe Staffing Advocate/Group.

Not one analytical study of staffing committees shows that the method promoted by the ANA is effective at improving patient outcomes or nurse staffing. Which you do note in a paragraph above, thank you, but readers need to really understand the gravity of the inadequacy of that legislation. It looks great on paper and in theory, but the real effect of it greatly lacks.

There is a notion that with mandated ratios that acuity of patients and a nurses skill set cannot be accounted for, but ironically enough, the national nurses study completed by the data we collected and published by the Illinois Economic & Policy Institute and the Illinois Labor & Employment Relations; shows that CA (with ratios) actually accounts for the acuity of patients more than Illinois, a state that has had the ANA legislation since 2007. That legislation is useless.

"47% of nurses in California report that staffing levels are based on the needs of patients in their units compared to just 32% in Illinois" https://illinoisepi.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/pmcr-with-ilepi-do-nurse-staffing-standards-work.pdf

There are mixed results from California, true enough. This can be attributed to methods of data collection and study design and have been acknowledged as so by Aiken. An aspect for people to know, having read several articles (including anti ratio) that explain how California did not have a significant need for an increase in nurse staffing numbers. It has especially been noted in the Kaiser facilities that most of them were already at the legislated level before the law went into place. Therefore, if you look at before and after, you may not see a significant difference depending on data collection and hospitals used in the studies.

When common sense tells us that improvement should occur on such a fundamental topic such as staffing, and some (not all) research contradicts that, we must ask why did those results that don't make sense occur?

Could it be that by statistically correlating items that did not always have a difference, such as falls and bedsores (again mixed results), in with items that have significant findings, such as failure to rescues, resulting in a decreased overall significant result has skewed significant results? Failure to rescues is statistically significant in almost all, if not every study that I have read, even ones that are anti-ratios. Death of a failure to rescue is significant and warrants not being calculated in with other nursing measurements just to decrease the overall significance.

It is no secret that our professional organization does not support real safe staffing legislation. They only support the fantasy "staffing committee" and the acuity method. And don't get me wrong, having nurses participate in the process is a good thing (if it actually happens and acuity needs to be part of staffing; but there needs to be a cap on the amount of patients nurses can be forced to take at one time. Most hospitals have demonstrated that they will only do this after being forced.

Staffing should be well enough that one call out does not result in unsafe staffing, contingency plans should be in place for unexpected events within reason. It should not be considered unreasonable to have break/resource nurses on units so that nurses are not watching two assignments when someone goes on break. Most hospitals in California have made it work successfully and hospitals there are making Millions-->Billions. So what if it is less than they would like. When CEOs are making Millions (and they are) along with other shareholders.... why do we care that they would make a little less in return for safe staffing? The fact is, even if CA hospitals are below the rest of the nation, they are still thriving.

In the article against having mandated ratios, it is discussed how EDs in CA wait time increased. That was found in a hospital that refused to hire staff (because they did not want to spend money, documented in the study). Therefore, they went against the law because they did not want to invest in nursing staff. This is an obvious purposeful outcome from the hospital's manipulation. Yet, there are also studies where hospitals did increase their staffing for the law, and the results show wait times decreased. So basically, we are supposed to concede to what a hospital's responsibility is because they purposely did not staff as they should have? Instead of penalizing them for refusing to abide by the law, safely staff, and provide care in a timely manner we should say no to having a safe patient limit?

NO.... plain and simple. That should not be the response. We absolutely should hold them accountable.

If anyone would like to contact their legislators to support real safe staffing legislation, you can do so at https://www-nursestakedc-com.filesusr.com/html/6004d0_2ed35ee2fb8ab9833cd60448c91cb3af.html#/

It is time to implement evidence-based practice into holding hospitals accountable for their responsibility... safely staffing.

To see world-renowned Linda Aiken Ph.D. discuss this as she has researched it for over two decades:

To the author, thank you again for including our movement, getting nurses to discuss the issue, and allow for the education of what nurses need to be advocating for.

Specializes in Safe Staffing Advocate/Group.
On 1/4/2020 at 10:58 PM, ArmyRntoMD said:

Staffing laws are unnecessary because you have people such as myself that will fill in and take those spots. We have no unions in Louisiana and somehow we have proper staffing. I’ve never had over 2 patients in the ICU and never had more than 4 on step down. Somehow without unions or laws... hmm.

Staffing laws are need because of people like you. I am sincerely happy that you have never had more than 2 patients in an ICU... many hospitals across the US are brainwashing their nurses that 3 patients are the new normal. And I mean 3 really sick, should have fewer ICU patients. I have seen step-downs where they are pushing 6 patients. Yes, very sick patients.

For starters, not everyone can just pack up and move to a hospital that has safe staffing practices. But more importantly, patients do not always get the choice and patients in any hospital deserve the opportunity to receive safe patient care.

Considering hospitals receive Millions of dollars from our taxpayer's money, in the form of reimbursements, they absolutely should have a real standard to be held accountable with safe staffing. Safe staffing should be a non-partisan approach. Unsafe staffing is a public health issue as failure to rescues are absolutely a real problem, and better nurse staffing can prevent it, as documented in evidence-based articles.

Over 20 years of research show unsafe staffing as a problem and show a solution to help it. It is time for accountability and change.