Background
Numerous studies internationally have provided evidence that nurse understaffing and non-supportive work environments are related to adverse patient outcomes, such as increased morbidity, mortality and costs [
1‐
4]. One proposed mechanism for these findings has been that unfavourable working conditions lead to the rationing of nursing care interventions [
5‐
7]. Care rationing refers to “the withholding of or failure to carry out necessary nursing interventions for patients due to a lack of nursing resources such as staffing, skill mix, or time” [
8]. When resources are insufficient, nurses are thus forced to ration their attention across patients and use their clinical judgment to prioritize assessments and interventions; leading to limits on interventions or omissions of aspects of care that may increase the risk of negative patient outcomes [
9]. Most research on care rationing to date has focussed on adult settings, with scant attention given to other clinical areas, such as the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
Staff in NICUs provide care for the most critically ill infants and nurses on these units are assigned to small numbers of patients [
10]. Optimal management of premature infants and their families thus requires a sufficient supply of highly skilled nurses and supportive work environments [
11,
12]. Despite these requirements, low staffing levels have been observed in NICUs in North America and Europe and further, low staffing levels have been associated with poor neonatal outcomes (e.g., mortality, nosocomial infection, intracranial hemorrhage) [
12‐
14]. In earlier studies, nurses have reported that care rationing is highly prevalent in this setting, with the most frequently rationed nursing interventions being discharge preparation and infant comfort care [
11,
15]. The rationing of infant comfort care is particularly worrisome given the documented effectiveness of nursing interventions to address neonatal pain and the critical mass of evidence suggesting that adequate neonatal pain management is associated with improved developmental and biobehavioral outcomes in later life [
16‐
18]. Similarly, the rationing of discharge preparation is also alarming given that decreased readiness for discharge has been associated with poorer infant and parent outcomes (e.g., anxiety and coping difficulties), as well as greater post-discharge health services utilization [
19,
20]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has examined whether the rationing of discharge preparation and infant comfort care are associated with lack of readiness for hospital discharge and poorer neonatal pain control, respectively. The purpose of this study was to examine these relationships.
Conceptual framework
At least two conceptual frameworks have been proposed to explain the process of nursing care rationing [
6,
21]. These frameworks are both based on Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome model [
22]. Accordingly, they both conceptualize the rationing of nursing care as a process-oriented measure of healthcare quality. Within these models, care rationing is hypothesized to occur as a response to hospital structural contingencies (e.g., understaffing, non-supportive work environments, lack of resources) and to be influenced by nurse characteristics (e.g., education, experience, decision-making skills), as well as by patient requirements for nursing care and severity of illness [
7,
8]. In turn, care rationing is presumed to result in potentially preventable adverse outcomes. While considerable research work has been conducted on the structural determinants of care rationing [
5,
9,
23], comparatively little attention has been given to whether the rationing of specific nursing interventions (e.g., discharge preparation, comfort care) is associated with poorer patient outcomes that are clinically connected to them (e.g., lack of readiness for hospital discharge, poor pain control) [
5].
Results
A total of 285 NICU RNs were contacted for the purpose of this study, and 125 returned a completed survey; resulting in a response rate of 44.0 %. All but five RNs completed the survey in French and the rate of missing values per variable was low (Range: 0–5.6 %). The typical participant was a Caucasian female, aged between 26 and 30 years (Table
1). She had received her initial nursing education in a three-year diploma program, and had gone on to complete a bachelor’s degree (Table
1). The average participant also held a part-time position and had 11 years of nursing experience, nine of which were in neonatal nursing (Table
1).
Table 1
Characteristics of the participants (N = 125)
Demographic characteristics |
Sex |
Female – n (%) | 125 (100.0) |
Race |
Caucasian – n (%) | 112 (89 · 6) |
Age – n (%) |
Less than 20 years | 0 (0.0) |
20–30 years | 60 (48 · 0) |
31–40 years | 37 (29 · 6) |
41–50 years | 11 (8 · 8) |
51–60 years | 15 (12 · 0) |
61 years and above | 2 (1 · 6) |
Professional characteristics |
Initial nursing education - n (%) |
Hospital diploma | 1 (0 · 8) |
College diploma | 95 (76 · 0) |
Baccalaureate degree | 28 (22 · 4) |
Master’s degree and above | 1 (0 · 8) |
Highest degree currently held – n (%) |
Hospital diploma | 0 (0.0) |
College diploma | 58 (46 · 4) |
Baccalaureate degree | 61 (48 · 8) |
Master’s degree and above | 6 (4 · 8) |
Years of experience |
As a nurse (M ± SD) | 11 · 1 ± 10 · 0 |
At current hospital (M ± SD) | 10 · 7 ± 9 · 9 |
In neonatal care (M ± SD) | 9 · 2 ± 9 · 2 |
Type of nursing position currently held |
Full-time – n (%) | 59 (47 · 2) |
Part-time – n (%) | 66 (52 · 8) |
Mean values for the independent and dependent variables used in the regression models are listed in Table
2. To facilitate interpretation of these values, some additional statistics are provided. Indeed, using the scale mid-point as the criterion on the care rationing subscales (i.e., the value indicating neither very often nor very rarely), we observed that 40.0 % of the respondents reported rationing Discharge Preparation often or very often, while 28.0 % reported rationing Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort care often or very often. In comparison, only 7.2 and 9.6 % of these nurses, respectively, reported rationing Life Support and Technology-Oriented Nursing Care and Patient Surveillance often or very often.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics: independent and dependent variables (n = 125)
Care Rationing (NEWRI)a |
Life support and technology-oriented nursing care | 1 · 53 ± 0 · 57 |
Patient surveillance | 1 · 67 ± 0 · 69 |
Parental teaching, support, and infant comfort care | 2 · 20 ± 0 · 59 |
Discharge preparation | 2 · 33 ± 0 · 59 |
Dependent variables |
Readiness for hospital discharge (RHDS)b – overall score | 6 · 81 ± 0 · 93 |
Neonatal pain controlc | 2 · 91 ± 1 · 06 |
In addition, 15.2 % of the respondents felt that parents and infants were not well prepared for NICU discharge. Furthermore, using mean scores above 2.5 on the single item measuring nurses’ perceptions of pain management in the NICU as a criterion (i.e., the value indicating a ‘neutral’ opinion about the quality of pain management), we observed that 54.4 % of RNs reported that pain had not been well managed on their unit in the past month.
Multivariate analysis
In the regression analyses, after adjusting for nurses’ demographic, professional and employment characteristics, we found that RNs’ increased perceptions of rationing of Discharge Preparation was significantly related to worse perceptions of parent and infant readiness for NICU discharge (Table
3). Specifically, every one-point increase in the rationing of Discharge Preparation was associated with a 4.8 % decrease in overall readiness for NICU discharge score (i.e., −0.53/11 units = −0.048 or −4.8 %) (Table
3). Similarly, reports of rationing of Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort Care were significantly and inversely related to nurses’ perceptions of readiness for NICU discharge (Table
3). The observed regression coefficient suggests that every one-point increase in the rationing of Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort Care is associated with a 4.1 % reduction in overall readiness for NICU discharge (i.e., −0.46/11 units = −0.041 or −4.1 %) (Table
3). Lastly, we observed that the rationing of Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort care was statistically significantly related to decreased levels of perceived neonatal pain control (Table
3). Specifically, a one-unit increase in the rationing of Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort Care was related to a 19.2 % reduction in nurses’ confidence that neonatal pain was well managed on their unit over the previous month (i.e., 0.96/5 = 0.192 or 19.2 %).
Table 3
Fully adjusted regression modelsa of the effects of care rationing on readiness for discharge and pain control (n = 125)
Parental support and teaching and infant comfort care | −0 · 46 (−0 · 73; −0 · 20)** | 0 · 96 (0 · 41; 1 · 50)** |
Discharge preparation | −0 · 53 (−0 · 71; −0 · 35)** | −0 · 01 (−0 · 38; 0 · 36) |
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the rationing of discharge preparation and infant comfort care, the two most frequently rationed neonatal nursing interventions [
11,
15], were associated with lack of readiness for NICU discharge and poorer neonatal pain control, respectively. In both cases, we found evidence for these associations.
We found that RNs’ perceptions of increased rationing of Discharge Preparation and of Parental Support and Teaching were both independently and significantly related to their perceptions of lower parent and infant readiness for NICU discharge. Recent studies suggest that understaffing, high patient census and turnover and non-supportive work environments (e.g., high non-nursing task requirements) all compete with NICU nurses’ time for teaching and discharge preparation [
15,
19,
38‐
40]. In addition, researchers have found that mothers who are unprepared for NICU discharge are more likely to report difficulty coping with infant care at home, adopt potentially unhealthy infant care behaviors, express a greater number of physical and psychosocial issues or complications, and require more unscheduled visits to healthcare providers in the first months following discharge [
19,
27,
40,
41]. Our results therefore add to this emerging body of literature by suggesting that when NICU nurses perceive they do not have sufficient time and resources, they will consequently ration important nursing interventions that are required to adequately prepare parents and infants for NICU discharge. Future research should examine whether the rationing of Discharge Preparation and of Parental Support and Teaching is associated with increased occurrence of independently measured adverse post-discharge outcomes.
The second finding of this study was the relationship of higher rationing of Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort Care with decreased levels of perceived pain control. Parental support and teaching in the NICU involves instructing parents on a variety of comfort measures, such as kangaroo care and breastfeeding, which have been observed to have analgesic effects [
16,
17]. NICU nurses can similarly use a variety of nonpharmacological (e.g., swaddling, non-nutritive sucking) and pharmacological interventions (e.g., using sucrose or other analgesic medications) to ease neonatal pain, stress and discomfort [
17]. Consistent with prior research [
34,
42], we found that lack of time and resources in the NICU act as barriers to the effective application of pain control measures by nurses, which presumably leads to less favourable evaluations of the quality of pain management. Given that numerous studies have documented the adverse consequences of poor pain management during the neonatal period on later developmental and biobehavioral outcomes [
18], there is a pressing need to further examine the relationships between care rationing and scores on standardized pain assessment scales and physiological indices of pain in NICU patients.
Moreover, using the NEWRI, we were able to quantify the extent of rationing of neonatal nursing interventions in Quebec’s NICUs. As can be noted in the following tabulation, the frequency with which neonatal nursing interventions are rationed in Quebec’s NICUs appears to have worsened since our previous investigation using the NEWRI in this same population of nurses [
11]:
Life support and technology-oriented nursing care | 0.9 % | 7.2 % |
Patient surveillance | 5.9 % | 9.6 % |
Parental teaching, support, and infant comfort care | 20.1 % | 28.0 % |
Discharge preparation | 28.1 % | 40.0 % |
To our knowledge, these represent the first longitudinal data on the variations in the extent of rationing of nursing care interventions in a given population through time. While these data are based on two time points, they nonetheless suggest that the conditions which lead to the rationing of these nursing interventions (e.g., understaffing and non-supportive work environment) may have further deteriorated in the 5-year period that separates the two studies; a hypothesis that warrants further investigation.
Similar to our earlier findings [
11], we again noted that Discharge Preparation and Parental Support and Teaching and Infant Comfort Care were more frequently rationed than Life Support and Technology-Oriented Nursing Care interventions or Patient Surveillance. This pattern is also consistent with several recent reviews of studies conducted in other clinical settings, patient populations and jurisdictions [
5,
9,
23], as well as with the results of a small study conducted in USA NICUs [
15]. Overall, this pattern suggests that in the face of limited resources, NICU nurses prioritize potentially life-saving interventions (e.g., patient surveillance and technology-oriented care) over less critically important ones such as discharge planning or parental support and teaching and infant comfort care. While such decisions are potentially beneficial for patient safety, they may not be without consequences for the infants and their parents.
Indeed, we found that 15.2 % of surveyed RNs felt that infants and parents were underprepared for NICU discharge, and 54.4 % believed that pain was not well managed on their unit. These findings, which are in agreement with previous reports by NICU nurses from other countries [
42‐
44], are particularly worrisome given the aforementioned adverse consequences associated with a lack of readiness for NICU discharge and uncontrolled neonatal pain.
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, our results may suffer from non-response bias. Indeed, while our response rate of 44.0 % compares favorably to those observed in recent mail surveys of RNs’ perceptions of the rationing of nursing care interventions [
5,
9], our overall sampling frame was limited by the small proportion of NICU nurses in the province of Quebec (39 %) who had consented to the release of their mailing addresses to researchers. However, a comparison of the demographic characteristics of the respondents and non-respondents (including those not agreeing to the release of their mailing address) suggests that our sample was representative of the population of NICU nurses in the province of Quebec (data not shown). Second, as is the case with nearly all studies in this area of research [
5], both the independent and dependent variables were based on NICU nurses’ perceptions. As a consequence, it is possible that nurses who have more unfavorable perceptions about care rationing may also believe that parent and infant readiness for discharge and neonatal pain control are suboptimal on their unit, when this may not, in fact, be the reality. Similarly, it is possible that nurses’ perceptions could be influenced by a variety of unmeasured factors, such as additional specialized training obtained by the nurses (e.g., developmental care certification) or the availability of dedicated discharge teams or pain management consultants in the NICU environment. Future studies examining the associations between the rationing of specific nursing interventions and patient outcomes should measure and potentially control for such factors. Lastly, cross-sectional analyses cannot provide definitive evidence for causal relationships. Longitudinal studies, including intervention trials, are thus needed to determine how the antecedent exposure to the rationing of nursing care interventions may influence both in-hospital and post-NICU discharge outcomes. Despite the aforementioned limitations, our findings are consistent with trends and patterns observed in other studies conducted in a variety of patient populations worldwide; which lends credibility to the results of this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Marianne Weiss for sharing the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale – Nurse Form with us.