General - Quality Improvement - QI Background for Research Resources

This article presents a systematic review of the research methods used to study quality improvement (QI) effectiveness in health care organizations. The review relied on existing literature as well as emergent themes to identify types of QI programs (e.g., data/feedback, information technology, staff education) and quality outcomes (e.g., mortality, morbidity, unnecessary variation). Studies were separated into four categories according to the type of organization in which the QI program was introduced: (a) hospital, (b) nursing home, (c) physician group, and (d) other health care organization. Results of the review indicate that most QI effectiveness research is conducted in hospital settings, is focused on multiple QI interventions, and utilizes process measures as outcomes. The review also yielded substantial variation with respect to the study designs used to examine QI effectiveness. The article concludes with a critique of these designs and suggestions for ways future research could address these shortcomings.

Background: Evidence-based management assumes that available research evidence is consistent with the problems and decision-making conditions faced by those who will utilize this evidence in practice. Purpose: This article attempts to identify how hospital leaders view key determinants of hospital quality and costs, as well as the fundamental ways these leaders ‘‘think’’ about solutions to quality and cost issues in their organizations. The objective of this analysis is to better inform the research agenda and approaches pursued by health services research so that this research reflects the ‘‘realities’’ of practice in hospitals. Methods: We conducted a series of semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of eight hospital and three health system leaders. Questions focused on current and future challenges facing hospitals as they relate to hospital quality, costs, and efficiency, and potential solutions to those challenges. Findings: Nine major organizational and managerial factors emerged from the interviews, including staffing, evidence-based practice, information technology, data availability and benchmarking, and leadership. Hospital leaders tend to think about these factors systemically and consider process-related factors as the important drivers of cost and quality.

As more quality improvement programs are implemented to achieve gains in performance, the need to evaluate their lasting effects has become increasingly evident. However, such long-term follow-up evaluations are scarce in healthcare implementation science, being largely relegated to the "need for further research" section of most project write-ups. This article explores the variety of conceptualizations of implementation sustainability, as well as behavioral and organizational factors that influence the maintenance of gains. It highlights the finer points of design considerations and draws on our own experiences with measuring sustainability, framed within the rich theoretical and empirical contributions of others. In addition, recommendations are made for designing sustainability analyses. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting implementation science frameworks and approaches developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI).

In an era of chronic resource scarcity it is critical that quality improvement professionals have confidence that their project activities cause measured change. A commonly used research design, the single group pre-test/post-test design, provides little insight into whether quality improvement interventions cause measured outcomes. A re-evaluation of a quality improvement programme designed to reduce the percentage of bilateral cardiac catheterisations for the period from January 1991 to October 1996 in three catheterisation laboratories in a north eastern state in the USA was performed using an interrupted time series design with switching replications. The accuracy and causal interpretability of the findings were considerably improved compared with the original evaluation design. Moreover, the re-evaluation provided tangible evidence in support of the suggestion that more rigorous designs can and should be more widely employed to improve the causal interpretability of quality improvement eVorts. Evaluation designs for quality improvement projects should be constructed to provide a reasonable opportunity, given available time and resources, for causal interpretation of the results. Evaluators of quality improvement initiatives may infrequently have access to randomised designs. Nonetheless, as shown here, other very rigorous research designs are available for improving causal interpretability. Unilateral methodological surrender need not be the only alternative to randomised experiments. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:179–186)

Background: Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods: We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results: The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion: The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

In contrast with the primary goals of science, which are to discover and disseminate new knowledge, the primary goal of improvement is to change performance. Unfortunately, scholarly accounts of the methods, experiences, and results of most medical quality improvement work are not published, either in print or electronic form. In our view this failure to publish is a serious deficiency: it limits the available evidence on efficacy, prevents critical scrutiny, deprives staff of the opportunity and incentive to clarify thinking, slows dissemination of established improvements, inhibits discovery of innovations, and compromises the ethical obligation to return valuable information to the public. The reasons for this failure are many: competing service responsibilities of and lack of academic rewards for improvement staff; editors’ and peer reviewers’ unfamiliarity with improvement goals and methods; and lack of publication guidelines that are appropriate for rigorous, scholarly improvement work. We propose here a draft set of guidelines designed to help with writing, reviewing, editing, interpreting, and using such reports. We envisage this draft as the starting point for collaborative development of more definitive guidelines. We suggest that medical quality improvement will not reach its full potential unless accurate and transparent reports of improvement work are published frequently and widely.

In 2005, draft guidelines were published for reporting studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial step in a consensus process for development of a more definitive version. This article contains the full revised version of the guidelines, which the authors refer to as SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence). This paper also describes the consensus process, which included informal feedback from authors, editors and peer reviewers who used the guidelines; formal written commentaries; input from a group of publication guideline developers; ongoing review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and methods for evaluating complex social programmes; a two-day meeting of stakeholders for critical discussion and debate of the guidelines’ content and wording; and commentary on sequential versions of the guidelines from an expert consultant group. Finally, the authors consider the major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft guidelines; limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE; ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions that are under development; and plans for dissemination, testing and further development of SQUIRE.

Background: Comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions on specific outcomes across trials can be problematic due to differences in the choice and definitions of outcome measures used by researchers. We sought to identify a minimum set of outcome measures for evaluating models of maternity care from the perspective of key stakeholders. Methods: A 3-round, electronic Delphi survey design was used. Setting was multinational, comprising a range of key stakeholders. Participants consisted of a single heterogeneous panel of maternity service users, midwives, obstetricians, pediatricians/neonatologists, family physicians/general practitioners, policymakers, service practitioners, and researchers of maternity care. Members of the panel self-assessed their expertise in evaluating models of maternity care. Results: A total of 320 people from 28 countries expressed willingness to take part in this survey. Round 1 was completed by 218 (68.1%) participants, of whom 173 (79.4%) completed round 2 and 152 (87.9%) of these completed round 3. Fifty outcomes were identified, with both a mean value greater than the overall group mean for all outcomes combined (x= 4.18) and rated 4 or more on a 5-point Likert-type scale for importance of inclusion in a minimum data set of outcome measures by at least 70 percent of respondents. Three outcomes were collapsed into a single outcome so that the final minimum set includes 48 outcomes. Conclusions: Given the inconsistencies in the choice of outcome measures routinely collected and reported in randomized evaluations of maternity care, it is hoped that use of the data set will increase the potential for national and international comparisons of models for maternity care. Although not intended to be prescriptive or to inhibit the collection of other outcomes, we hope that the core set will make it easier to assess the care of women and their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. (BIRTH 34:2 June 2007)

Background: In quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) teams of practitioners from different health care organizations are brought together to systematically improve an aspect of patient care. Teams take part in a series of meetings to learn about relevant best practices, quality methods and change ideas, and share experiences in making changes in their own local setting. The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument for measuring team organization, external change agent support and support from the team's home institution in a Dutch national improvement and dissemination programme for hospitals based on several QICs. Methods: The exploratory methodological design included two phases: a) content development and assessment, resulting in an instrument with 15 items, and b) field testing (N = 165). Internal consistency reliability was tested via Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Principal component analyses were used to identify underlying constructs. Tests of scaling assumptions according to the multi trait/multi-item matrix, were used to confirm the component structure. Results: Three components were revealed, explaining 65% of the variability. The components were labelled 'organizational support', 'team organization' and 'external change agent support'. One item not meeting item-scale criteria was removed. This resulted in a 14 item instrument. Scale reliability ranged from 0.77 to 0.91. Internal item consistency and divergent validity were satisfactory. Conclusion: On the whole, the instrument appears to be a promising tool for assessing team organization and internal and external support during QIC implementation. The psychometric properties were good and warrant application of the instrument for the evaluation of the national programme and similar improvement programmes.

Introduction: Despite the popularity of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) in different healthcare settings, relatively little is known about the implementation process. The objective of the current study is to learn more about relations between relevant conditions for successful implementation of QICs, applied changes, perceived successes, and actual outcomes. Methods: Twenty-four Dutch hospitals participated in a dissemination programme based on QICs. A questionnaire was sent to 237 leaders of teams who joined 18 different QICs to measure changes in working methods and activities, overall perceived success, team organisation, and supportive conditions. Actual outcomes were extracted from a database with team performance indicator data. Multi-level analyses were conducted to test a number of hypothesised relations within the cross-classified hierarchical structure in which teams are nested within QICs and hospitals. Results: Organisational and external change agent support is related positively to the number of changed working methods and activities that, if increased, lead to higher perceived success and indicator outcomes scores. Direct and indirect positive relations between conditions and perceived success could be confirmed. Relations between conditions and actual outcomes are weak. Multi-level analyses reveal significant differences in organisational support between hospitals. The relation between perceived successes and actual outcomes is present at QIC level but not at team level. Discussion: Several of the expected relations between conditions, applied changes and outcomes, and perceived successes could be verified. However, because QICs vary in topic, approach, complexity, and promised advantages, further research is required: first, to understand why some QIC innovations fit better within the context of the units where they are implemented; second, to assess the influence of perceived success and actual outcomes on the further dissemination of projects over new patient groups.

Rationale: There is a pressing need for practical clinical trials (PCTs) that are more relevant to clinicians and decision-makers, but many are unaware of these trials. Furthermore, such trials can be challenging to conduct and to report. Objective: The objective of this study was to build on the seminal paper by Tunis et al (Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624 –1632.) and to provide recommendations and examples of how practical clinical trials can be conducted and the results reported to enhance external validity without sacrificing internal validity. Key Issues: We discuss evaluating practical intervention options, alternative research designs, representativeness of samples participating at both the patient and the setting/clinician level, and the need for multiple outcomes to address clinical and policy implications. Conclusions: We provide a set of specific recommendations for issues to be reported in PCTs to increase their relevance to clinicians and policymakers, and to help reduce the gap between research and practice.

Background: The multi-organizational collaborative is a popular model for quality improvement (QI) initiatives. It assumes organizations will share information and social support. However, there is no comprehensive documentation of the extent to which teams do interact. Considering QI collaboratives as networks, interactions among teams were documented, and the associations between network roles and performance were examined. Methods: A telephone survey of official team contact persons for 94 site teams in three QI collaboratives was conducted in 2002 and 2003. Four performance measures were used to assess the usefulness of ties to other teams and being considered a leader by peers. Results: Eighty percent of the teams said they would contact another team again if they felt the need. Teams made a change as a direct result of interaction in 86% of reported relationships. Teams typically exchanged tools such as software and interacted outside of planned activities. Having a large number of ties to other teams is strongly related to the number of mentions as a leader. Both of these variables are related to faculty-assessed performance, number of changes the team made to improve care, and depth of those changes. Discussion: The findings suggest that collaborative teams do indeed exchange important information, and the social dynamics of the collaboratives contribute to individual and collaborative success.

Background: Practitioners and policymakers need credible evidence of effectiveness to justify allocating resources to complex, expensive health programs. Investigators, however, face challenges in designing sound effectiveness and translation research with relevance for “real-world” settings. Methods: Research experts and federal and foundation funders (n!"120) prepared for and participated in a symposium, held May 4–5, 2004, to weigh the strengths, limitations, and trade-offs between alternate designs for studying the effectiveness and translation of complex, multilevel health interventions. Results: Symposium attendees acknowledged that research phases (hypothesis generating, efficacy, effectiveness, translation) are iterative and cyclical, not linear, since research in advanced phases may reveal unanswered questions in earlier phases. Research questions thus always need to drive the choice of study design. When randomization and experimental control are feasible, participants noted that the randomized controlled trial with individual random assignment remains the gold standard for safeguarding internal validity. Attendees highlighted trade-offs of randomized controlled trial variants, quasi-experimental designs, and natural experiments for use when randomization or experimental control or both are impossible or inadequately address external validity. Participants discussed enhancements to all designs to increase confidence in causal inference while accommodating greater external validity. Since no single study can establish causality, participants encouraged replication of studies and triangulation using different study designs. Participants also recommended participatory research approaches for building population relevance, acceptability, and usefulness. Conclusions: Consideration of the study design choices, trade-offs, and enhancements discussed here can guide the design, funding, completion, and publication of appropriate policy- and practice-oriented effectiveness and translational research for complex, multilevel health interventions.

This article describes common quantitative design techniques that can be used to collect and analyze quality data. An understanding of the differences between these design techniques can help healthcare quality professionals make the most efficient use of their time, energies, and resources. To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of these various study designs, it is necessary to assess factors that threaten the degree with which quality professionals may infer a cause-and-effect relationship from the data collected. Processes, the conduits of organizational function, often can be assessed by methods that do not take into account confounding and compromising circumstances that affect the outcomes of their analyses. An assumption that the implementation of process improvements may cause real change is incomplete without a consideration of other factors that might also have caused the same result. It is only through the identification, assessment, and exclusion of these alternative factors that administrators and healthcare quality professionals can assess the degree to which true process improvement or compliance has occurred. This article describes the advantages and disadvantages of common quantitative design techniques and reviews the corresponding threats to the interpretability of data obtained from their use. PMID: 11378972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Implementation Science (IS) is a new branch of health services research (HSR) that strives to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of health care quality improvement (QI) efforts. Despite the fact that IS takes a systems approach, building contextual factors into its research designs, the complex systems context of IS itselfdand the impact this context has on IS practicedhas never been scrutinized. Using individual interviews and participant observation, the research described here characterizes key contextual factors affecting how implementation scientists in one large health care organization approach and conduct their research. Some of the organizational and professional system forces structuring their attitudes and actions were grant-related timelines, administrative burdens, and team turnover. The need for publications also figured highly. While such pressures (and related responses to them) may be rife in most grant-funded health care research settings, IS’s particularly marginal position drove these implementation scientists to strategically highlight particular aspects of their work depending on which audience or part of the system they required favor from. Their narratives illuminate the contradictions and contests entailed within and engendered by organizational and professional structures, and the strategies used to negotiate these. They also reveal a great deal about the struggles underwriting disciplinary identity claims in a complex systems context.

Background: Gaps between evidence and practice in the care of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) in the United States suggest major opportunities for improvement. However, the organizational factors and implementation approaches that influence adherence to national guidelines are poorly understood. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to explore the degree to which providers in the Veterans Health Administration system adhere to CHF clinical practice guidelines, and to identify facilitylevel factors influencing adherence. Design: In a national cross-sectional study, facility quality managers were surveyed regarding quality improvement efforts, guideline implementation, and context. These data were linked to organizational structure data and provider adherence data from chart reviews. The unit of analysis was the facility. The data were adjusted for the average number of comorbidities per CHF patient. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to model factors affecting adherence to CHF guidelines. Sample: The sample consisted of 143 Veterans Administration Medical Centers with ambulatory care clinics. Results: The quality manager survey included data from 91% of facilities. Facility-level estimates of provider adherence measures were, on average, 85% or more for most measures. In multivariate analyses, facilities with higher levels of adherence were more likely to have: (1) providers who had been given a brief guideline summary, (2) providers receptive to the guidelines, (3) guideline-specific task forces to support implementation, and 4) a well-planned implementation process. Conclusions: Healthcare organizations should adapt implementation to meet local conditions, including creating guideline-specific task forces, developing a well-planned implementation process, fostering provider buy-in, and providing guideline summaries to providers.

Background: Collaborative approaches in quality improvement have been promoted since the introduction of the Breakthrough method. The effectiveness of this method is inconclusive and further independent evaluation of the method has been called for. For any evaluation to succeed, data collection on interventions performed within the collaborative and outcomes of those interventions is crucial. Getting enough data from Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) for evaluation purposes, however, has proved to be difficult. This paper provides a retrospective analysis on the process of data management in a Dutch Quality Improvement Collaborative. From this analysis general failure and success factors are identified. Discussion: This paper discusses complications and dilemma's observed in the set-up of data management for QICs. An overview is presented of signals that were picked up by the data management team. These signals were used to improve the strategies for data management during the program and have, as far as possible, been translated into practical solutions that have been successfully implemented. The recommendations coming from this study are: From our experience it is clear that quality improvement programs deviate from experimental research in many ways. It is not only impossible, but also undesirable to control processes and standardize data streams. QIC's need to be clear of data protocols that do not allow for change. It is therefore minimally important that when quantitative results are gathered, these results are accompanied by qualitative results that can be used to correctly interpret them. Monitoring and data acquisition interfere with routine. This makes a database collecting data in a QIC an intervention in itself. It is very important to be aware of this in reporting the results. Using existing databases when possible can overcome some of these problems but is often not possible given the change objective of QICs. Introducing a standardized spreadsheet to the teams is a very practical and helpful tool in collecting standardized data within a QIC. It is vital that the spreadsheets are handed out before baseline measurements start.

Objective. To determine the relationship between variations in hospital incident reporting and the corresponding attitudes and participation of medical professionals. Methods. An in-depth qualitative case study using semi-structured interviews with hospital managers and clinicians. Twelve participants were theoretically sampled based on their involvement with clinical risk management and patient safety. Twentyfive medical physicians and four risk leads were selected from the specialist hospital departments of Obstetrics, Anaesthesia, General Surgery, Acute Medicine, and Rehabilitation. The data were analysed to develop a descriptive account of the intrahospital variations in reporting and the associated attitudes of physicians. Setting. The research was conducted in a single acute National Health Service Hospital Trust in the English Midlands. Results. The qualitative data revealed significant variations in the intra-hospital organization of incident reporting between medical specialities that corresponded with the attitudes and participation of medical staff. Specifically, it was found that medical doctors were more inclined to report incidents where the process of reporting was localized and integrated within medical rather than managerial systems of quality improvement. Underlying these variations, it is suggested that medical reporting is more likely when physicians have greater control or ownership of incident reporting, as this fosters confidence in the purpose of reporting, in particular its capacity to make meaningful service improvements whilst maintaining a sense of collegiality and professionalism.

The relationship between human resource management practices and organizational performance (including quality of care in health-care organizations) is an important topic in the organizational sciences but little research has been conducted examining this relationship in hospital settings. Human resource (HR) directors from sixtyone acute hospitals in England (Hospital Trusts) completed questionnaires or interviews exploring HR practices and procedures. The interviews probed for information about the extensiveness and sophistication of appraisal for employees, the extent and sophistication of training for employees and the percentage of staff working in teams. Data on patient mortality were also gathered. The Ž ndings revealed strong associations between HR practices and patient mortality generally. The extent and sophistication of appraisal in the hospitals was particularly strongly related, but there were links too with the sophistication of training for staff, and also with the percentages of staff working in teams.

Over the past decade, clinical guidelines have increasingly become a familiar part of clinical practice. Every day, clinical decisions at the bedside, rules of operation at hospitals and clinics, and health spending by governments and insurers are being influenced by guidelines. As defined by the Institute of Medicine, clinical guidelines are “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”1 They may offer concise instructions on which diagnostic or screening tests to order, how to provide medical or surgical services, how long patients should stay in hospital, or other details of clinical practice. The broad interest in clinical guidelines that is stretching across Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (box) has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs, fueled by increased demand for care, more expensive technologies, and an ageing population; variations in service delivery among providers, hospitals, and geographical regions and the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care, either overuse or underuse of services; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and of patients to receive, the best care possible. Clinicians, policy makers, and payers see guidelines as a tool for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports. As guidelines diffuse into medicine, there are important lessons to learn from the firsthand experience of those who develop, evaluate, and use them.3 This article, the first of a four part series to reflect on these lessons, examines the potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. Future articles will review lessons learned about their development,4 legal and emotional ramifications,5 and finally their implementation

Arguably the greatest achievement of academic health services research of the last half-century has created its greatest unmet challenge. The achievement is to have documented beyond doubt the widespread defects in health care, even in wealthy systems. The challenge is to discover what we need to know that we do not now know in order to create much more effective systems of care. Health services research has not yet been sufficiently helpful in meeting the challenge of improving care in part because it has over-constrained both its methods and its favorite topics. The cost of insisting on formal, classical, summative, evaluative experimental designs in an uncertain, poorly understood, nonlinear, system is, unfortunately, to maintain the status quo. When the status quo is harmful, as health care is today, harm is not a theoretical problem. It is real, and it is indecent. Health services research should become more effectively part of the solution. To do that will require that we enrich our portfolio of methods and broaden our agenda of inquiry. The scientific methods that we need to enhance and dignify in academic settings will combine formal classical methods with some pragmatic, immediate, and in many ways more informative forms of learning and investigation.

Fifteen months after releasing its report on patient safety (To Err Is Human), the Institute of Medicine released Crossing the Quality Chasm. Although less sensational than the patient safety report, the Quality Chasm report is more comprehensive and, in the long run, more important. It calls for improvements in six dimensions of health care performance: safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity; and it asserts that those improvements cannot be achieved within the constraints of the existing system of care. It provides a rationale and a framework for the redesign of the US health care system at four levels: patients' experiences; the "Microsystems" that actually give care; the organizations that house and support Microsystems; and the environment of laws, rules, payment, accreditation, and professional training that shape organizational action.

editorial

Studies of quality improvement are often poorly reported. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Group describes how its guidelines could improve standards

As the nation’s hospitals face increasing demands to participate in a wide range of quality improvement activities, the role and influence of nurses in these efforts is also increasing, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Hospital organizational cultures set the stage for quality improvement and nurses’ roles in those activities. Hospitals with supportive leadership, a philosophy of quality as everyone’s responsibility, individual accountability, physician and nurse champions, and effective feedback reportedly offer greater promise for successful staff engagement in improvement activities. Yet hospitals confront challenges with regard to nursing involvement, including: scarcity of nursing resources; difficulty engaging nurses at all levels—from bedside to management; growing demands to participate in more, often duplicative, quality improvement activities; the burdensome nature of data collection and reporting; and shortcomings of traditional nursing education in preparing nurses for their evolving role in today’s contemporary hospital setting. Because nurses are the key caregivers in hospitals, they can significantly influence the quality of care provided and, ultimately, treatment and patient outcomes. Consequently, hospitals’ pursuit of high-quality patient care is dependent, at least in part, on their ability to engage and use nursing resources effectively, which will likely become more challenging as these resources become increasingly limited.