Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2017 Nov;18(4):216-217. doi: 10.1177/1527154418772206. Epub 2018 May 9.
Kovner, C. T., Brewer, C. S., Fatehi, F., Jun, J. (2014). What does nurse turnover rate mean and what is the rate. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 15(3-4), 64-71. doi: 10.1177/1527154414547953 The authors wish to make a correction to the above referenced article. Table 4 provides very misleading data, because all the settings and hospital only rates were calculated differently and therefore the rows should not be compared. [Table: see text] The first row (now Table 4a ) includes RN jobs only in any setting. The numerators are those RNs who had started their first jobs at least 13 months prior survey completion and had left that 1st job. The denominators are those RNs who had started their job at least 13 months prior to survey completion. To calculate the numbers in Table 4a we used the dates that respondents gave us for start and stop dates of the job. Corrected Table 4 are shown in Tables 4a and 4b [Table: see text] The second row (now Table 4b ) includes RNs working in RN or Non RN-jobs in hospitals. The numerators are those RNs who had started their first job in a hospital at least 13 or more months prior to survey completion and had left that job. The denominators are those RNs who had started their job at least 13 months prior to survey completion. To calculate the numbers in Table 4b , we used a variable that specifically asked if the RN had left his or her first job or not and if he or she left what was the setting for that job. Table 4a and 4b were calculated differently due to limitations in the data. We did not ask the 2004-05 responders the setting of their first job if they had left that job prior to the survey. From the dates we knew when that job started and stopped. We did ask the setting question of the 2007-8 and 2010-11 responders. When we tried to calculate the hospital turnover rate using dates from responders and combining that with the setting question in some cases we saw inconsistencies in the data. For example, using the dates' variable a responder said that she had left her first job prior to the first survey, but in the setting question she said that she had not left her first job prior to the first survey. In addition, in the original table we used as a denominator all responders who were in their first hospital job. To make the numbers more readily comparable when we redid the tables we used the same type of denominator for Tables 4a and 4b . Published Table 4 [Table: see text] The changes that we made to the tables necessitate changes to the narrative in the article. The replacement sentence is in bold below. The page 68 right column, paragraph starting with "To make the point that turnover varies by setting …" in light of the new tables should read, "To make the point that turnover varies by setting, we also calculated the turnover rate for those whose first job was in a hospital for the 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 samples. In Table 4 , note that the hospital-specific turnover rates are higher than all setting rates for the 2007-2008 sample and hospitals rates are lower for the 2010-2011 sample, although it is a small difference and the calculation procedure was similar, the calculation procedures used different data sources. This is consistent with our findings (Kovner et al., 2014) that new RNs from the latest cohort were less likely to work in hospitals than earlier cohorts because they were unable to get hospital positions rather than because they preferred nonhospital settings. While we wish that we had focused on the differences in calculation methods prior to publication of this article, finding this after publication adds to the argument about how important it is to look at how turnover numbers are calculated and to what settings do the numbers refer.
科夫纳,C.T.,布鲁尔,C.S.,法泰希,F.,朱恩,J.(2014年)。护士离职率意味着什么以及该比率是多少。《政策、政治与护理实践》,15(3 - 4),64 - 71。doi:10.1177/1527154414547953 作者希望对上述引用文章进行修正。表4提供了极具误导性的数据,因为所有机构和医院的比率计算方式不同,因此各行数据不应进行比较。[表:见正文] 第一行(现为表4a)仅包括在任何机构的注册护士岗位。分子是那些在调查完成前至少13个月开始其第一份工作且已离开该第一份工作的注册护士。分母是那些在调查完成前至少13个月开始工作的注册护士。为计算表4a中的数字,我们使用了受访者提供的工作开始和结束日期。修正后的表4显示在表4a和4b中[表:见正文] 第二行(现为表4b)包括在医院从事注册护士或非注册护士岗位工作的注册护士。分子是那些在调查完成前至少13个月或更长时间在医院开始其第一份工作且已离开该工作的注册护士。分母是那些在调查完成前至少13个月开始工作的注册护士。为计算表4b中的数字,我们使用了一个专门询问注册护士是否已离开其第一份工作以及如果离开其工作机构是什么的变量。由于数据限制,表4a和4b的计算方式不同。我们没有询问2004 - 05年的受访者如果他们在调查前已离开其第一份工作,其第一份工作的机构是什么。从日期我们知道那份工作何时开始和结束。我们确实询问了2007 - 08年和2010 - 11年受访者的工作机构问题。当我们试图使用受访者提供的日期计算医院离职率并在某些情况下将其与工作机构问题相结合时,我们发现数据存在不一致之处。例如,使用日期变量,一名受访者表示她在第一次调查前已离开其第一份工作,但在工作机构问题中她表示她在第一次调查前未离开其第一份工作。此外,在原始表格中,我们将所有处于其第一份医院工作的受访者作为分母。为使表格中的数字更易于比较,我们在重新制作表4a和4b时使用了相同类型的分母。已发表的表4 [表:见正文] 我们对表格所做的更改使得文章中的叙述也需要更改。替换后的句子如下加粗显示。第68页右栏,以“为说明离职率因机构而异……”开头的段落,鉴于新表格应改为:“为说明离职率因机构而异,我们还计算了2007 - 2008年和2010 - 2011年样本中第一份工作在医院的人员离职率。在表4中,请注意,2007 - 2008年样本中特定医院的离职率高于所有机构的离职率,而2010 - 2011年样本中医院的离职率较低,尽管差异较小且计算程序相似,但计算程序使用了不同的数据来源。这与我们的研究结果(科夫纳等人,2014年)一致,即最新一批新注册护士在医院工作的可能性低于早期批次,原因是他们无法获得医院职位,而非因为他们更喜欢非医院机构。虽然我们希望在本文发表之前就关注计算方法上的差异,但在发表后才发现这一点,这进一步说明了查看离职率数字是如何计算的以及这些数字所指的机构是什么是多么重要。