NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced-Based Literature Search and Organization

Student Name

Capella University

NURS-FPX 8030 Evidence-Based Practice Process for the Nursing Doctoral Learner

Prof. Name

Date

Evidence-Based Literature Review: Staffing Ratios and Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare

Introduction

Staffing shortages pose significant challenges in healthcare, impacting patient safety and satisfaction. This literature review explores the relationship between staffing ratios and patient satisfaction, emphasizing the need for adequate staffing in healthcare settings.

Research Question

The research question, formulated using the PICOT framework, investigates the impact of safe staffing ratios (1:6) compared to unsafe ratios (less than 1:6) on patient safety and satisfaction in hospital settings within a six-month timeframe.

Literature Search

The literature search process involves identifying problems related to nursing staff’s daily experiences and patient outcomes. Utilizing keywords such as nurses, nursing ratios, patient satisfaction, patient safety, and six months, the search was conducted on CINAHL Complete and Nursing & Allied Health databases.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria require selected articles to be peer-reviewed and not older than five years, with a focus on hospital settings. Exclusion criteria eliminate articles older than five years, non-peer-reviewed articles, and those not set in hospitals. Patients with specific conditions affecting data accuracy are also excluded.

Selected Research Articles

Five articles meeting the inclusion criteria are selected:

1. Exploring the relation between modelled and perceived workload of nurses and related job demands, job resources, and personal resources (Van Den Oetelaar et al., 2021).
2. Impact of Dual Intensive Care Unit and Rapid Response Team Nursing Roles on Service Delivery in the Intensive Care Unit (Fildes et al., 2022).
3. Rethinking Nursing Productivity: A Review of the Literature and Interviews with Thought Leaders (Disch & Finis, 2022).
4. What Do Nurses Need to Practice Effectively in the Hospital Environment? An Integrative Review With Implications for Nurse Leaders (Kowalski et al., 2020).
5. An Overview of Missed Nursing Care and Its Predictors in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study (Al Muharraq et al., 2022).

Literature Review Results

A PRISMA diagram (see Appendix 1) illustrates the identification and selection of studies via databases and registers, reflecting the systematic approach to the literature review.

References

Al Muharaaq, E. H., Alallah, S. M., Alkhayrat, S. A., & Jahlan, A. G. (2022). An overview of missed nursing care and its predictors in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. Nursing Research and Practice, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4971890

Disch, J., & Finis, N. (2022). Rethinking nursing productivity: A review of the literature and interviews with thought leaders. Nursing Economics, 40(2), 59-71.

Fildes, C., Munt, R., & Chamberlain, D. (2022). Impact of dual intensive care unit and rapid response team nursing roles on service delivery in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Nurse, 42(5), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2022540

Kowalski, M. O., Basile, C., Bersick, E., Cole, D. A., McClure, D. E., & Weaver, S. H. (2020). What do nurses need to practice effectively in the hospital environment? An integrative review with implications for nurse leaders. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12401

NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced-Based Literature Search and Organization

Van Den Oetelaar, W. F. J. M., Roelen, C. A. M., Grolman, W., Stellato, R. K., & Willem, v. R. (2021). Exploring the relation between modelled and perceived workload of nurses and related job demands, job resources, and personal resources; a longitudinal study. PLoS One, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246658

Appendix 1: PRISMA Diagram

• Identification Stage:

  • Studies identified via databases and registers: 44
  • Duplicate records removed: 7
  • Records marked as ineligible by automation tools: 6
  • Records removed for other reasons: 2
  • Records screened: 29
  • Records excluded: 8
  • Reports sought for retrieval: 21
  • Reports not retrieved: 6

• Screening Stage:

  • Reports assessed for eligibility: 15
  • Reports excluded (Reason 1 – Insignificant population): 4
  • Reports excluded (Reason 2 – Inappropriate intervention – never utilized any staffing strategies): 6
  • Studies included in review: 5