McHugh M L
Wichita State University, School of Nursing, KS, USA.
Nurs Econ. 1997 Nov-Dec;15(6):294-300.
This study evaluated costs and staffing balance outcomes comparing unrestricted unit floating (UUF) with cluster [by related patient population or technical requirements] unit floating (CUF) practices. Researchers used a computer simulation model with data from a 400 bed VA hospital. Literature suggested a high nurse turnover rate associated with dissatisfaction engendered by forced floating to unfamiliar units. Direct wage cost differences were negligible when UUF and CUF floating patterns were compared, so absolute costs were not the defining issue. UUF staffing patterns produced significantly fewer understaffed shifts (by nursing hours) than CUF floating permitted. The essential quality of care trade-off is between the UUF pattern that provided sufficient nursing hours of care vs. the CUF pattern that provided less absolute availability in hours of nursing care, but a better oriented staff. The author suggests seeking staff input when deciding which of these two floating patterns would be most acceptable in a particular institution.
本研究评估了将无限制科室轮转(UUF)与[按相关患者群体或技术要求划分的]分组科室轮转(CUF)做法相比较的成本及人员配置平衡结果。研究人员使用了一个计算机模拟模型,并采用了一家拥有400张床位的退伍军人事务部医院的数据。文献表明,强制轮转至不熟悉的科室会导致护士不满,进而造成较高的护士流失率。比较UUF和CUF的轮转模式时,直接工资成本差异可忽略不计,因此绝对成本并非关键问题。与CUF轮转相比,UUF的人员配置模式导致人员配备不足班次(按护理时长计算)显著减少。护理质量的关键权衡在于,UUF模式能提供充足的护理时长,而CUF模式虽然护理时长的绝对可利用性较低,但能让员工更有方向感。作者建议,在决定这两种轮转模式中哪一种在特定机构中最可接受时,应征求员工的意见。