Article

Adoption of National Quality Forum Safe Practices by Magnet (R) Hospitals

College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens.
The Journal of nursing administration (Impact Factor: 1.37). 09/2011; 41(9):350-6. DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e31822a71a7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT : Magnet hospitals (MHs) are known for their high retention rates of nurses and positive work environment, yet little is known about whether MHs also have higher levels of safe practice adoption rates compared with non-Magnet hospitals (NMHs).
: In this study, we investigate adoption of National Quality Forum (NQF) Safe Practices in 34 regions during 2004 to 2006 that were part of the Leapfrog Group initiative to improve quality of hospital care. We conducted a secondary data analysis by combining multiple data sets from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Healthcare Cost Reports Information System, and Leapfrog Group Annual Hospital Survey. A composite safe practice score (CSPS) was constructed from the Leapfrog annual survey and ranged from 0 (no adoption) to 1,000 (complete adoption) of the 30 NQF Safe Practices. A descriptive analysis and a regression with Heckman correction to control for selection bias were used to determine the effect of Magnet status and other hospital and market characteristics on differences in CSPS over the 3-year period.
: There were 140 MHs and 1,320 NMHs reporting data for the CSPS. In 2004, MHs had a mean CSPS of 865 versus 774 for NMHs (P < .001). By 2006, NMHs improved their CSPS from 774 to 872 (98 points), whereas MHs improved their CSPS from 865 to 925 (60 points, P < .001). Regression analysis showed a positive and significant effect of Magnet status of hospitals on the adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices as measured by the CSPS. Our results also indicated that smaller hospitals (in bed size), hospitals with larger share of Medicare patients, higher nurse intensity levels (mean hours of nursing care per day), and higher levels of competition among hospitals in Leapfrog rollout regions were associated with higher CSPS.
: Magnet hospitals in the urban areas of 34 Leapfrog rollout regions were more likely to have higher adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices in comparison to NMHs in the same demographic areas during the time frame of the study, but other hospitals nearly closed the gap by 2006.

0 Followers
 · 
124 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this systematic review of diverse evidence was to examine the relationship between health system governance and workforce outcomes. Particular attention was paid to how governance mechanisms facilitate change in the workforce to ensure the effective use of all health providers.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2014; 14(1):479. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-479 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although Magnet hospitals (MHs) are known for their better nursing care environments, little is known about whether MHs achieve this at a higher (lower) cost of health care or whether a superior nursing environment yields higher net patient revenue versus non-MHs over an extended period of time. To examine how achieving Magnet status is related to subsequent inpatient costs and revenues controlling for other hospital characteristics. Data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Hospital Cost Reporting Information System reports collected by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Magnet status of hospitals from American Nurses Credentialing Center from 1998 to 2006 were combined and used for the analysis. Descriptive statistics, propensity score matching, fixed-effect, and instrumental variable methods were used to analyze the data. Regression analyses revealed that MH status is positively and significantly associated with both inpatient costs and net inpatient revenues for both urban hospitals and all hospitals. MH status was associated with an increase of 2.46% in the inpatient costs and 3.89% in net inpatient revenue for all hospitals, and 2.1% and 3.2% for urban hospitals. Although it is costly for hospitals to attain Magnet status, the cost of becoming a MH may be offset by higher net inpatient income. On average, MHs receive an adjusted net increase in inpatient income of $104.22-$127.05 per discharge after becoming a Magnet which translates to an additional $1,229,770-$1,263,926 in income per year.
    Medical care 02/2014; 52(5). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000092 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to compile a rich description of the phenomenon Magnet® journey by registered nurses in clinical settings who provide direct patient care in community healthcare systems recently receiving Magnet designation. Evidence supports that Magnet designation leads to improved nursing, patient, and organizational outcomes. Descriptions abound regarding the organizational and cultural transformation during the time leading up to the Magnet designation, commonly referred to as the Magnet journey. There are no published reports regarding the impact of this transformational process on staff nurses. Focus groups were conducted at recently designated Magnet hospitals; data were transcribed, reviewed, coded, and themed. The 58 subjects represented various work areas, specialties, and practice sites. Key themes emerged consistent with components of the Magnet model: relationships with leaders, professional accountability, staff voice, Magnet continuum, professional relationships, professional development, and resources/supports. Overall, staff nurses emphasized the positive impact of the transformation that occurred during the journey and the resultant Magnet designation on stakeholders. Results from this study offer guidance for Magnet project directors, chief nursing officers, managers, advanced practice nurses, and staff nurses involved in or considering the Magnet journey. "Magnet slippage" emerged as a new concept.
    The Journal of nursing administration 01/2013; 43(7/8):403-408. DOI:10.1097/NNA.0b013e31829d61aa · 1.37 Impact Factor