East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Lister Hospital
Stevenage, United Kingdom
NCT Number: NCT05917574
Background: Staffing in intensive care units (ICU) has been in the spotlight since the pandemic. Having enough nurses to deliver safe, quality care in ICU is important. However, what the skill mix should be (how many should be qualified nurses or have an ICU qualification) is unclear. Very little research has been done to look at which nursing staff combinations and mix of skills works best in ICU to support patients (described as 'staffing models').Research shows that there is a link between the quality of nurse staffing and poor patient outcomes, including deaths.
Aim: Our research plans to look at different staffing models across the UK. This study aims to examine new staffing models in ICU across six very different Trusts. This study will use a research technique called Realist Evaluation that examines what works best in different situations and help to understand why some things work for some people and not others. The design of this approach will help to better understand the use of different staff ratios across different ICU settings.
This study will examine what combinations of staff numbers and skills result in better patient care and improved survival rates. The aim is to produce a template that every ICU unit can use. To do this, this study will compare staffing levels with how well patients recover, and seek to understand the decisions behind staffing combinations.
Methods: This study will:
1. carry out a national survey to understand the different staff models being used, comparing this against the current national standard (n=294 ICUs in the UK including Scotland) 2. observe how people at work in 6 hospitals (called ethnography), watching how they make decisions around staffing and the effect on patients. The investigators will also conduct interviews (30 interviews plus 30 ethnographic observations) to understand staffing decisions. 3. look at ICU staffing patterns and models, and linked patient outcomes (such as whether people survive ICU) over 3 years (2019-2023) in those hospitals, including with a very different combination of staffing). The investigators will then carry out some mathematical calculations to understand the best possible staffing combinations, and how this varies.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Observational
Stevenage, United Kingdom
Background: Optimising deployment of the scarce nursing workforce in the intensive care unit (ICU) is paramount for patient safety, and staff wellbeing. ICU staffing models are determined by National Health Service (NHS) service specification, with 1:1 patient to registered nurse (RN) ratios for the highest acuity patients. A rapid expansion of ICU capacity during COVID19 led to adoption of alternative models, using more support staff, non-ICU qualified nurses and other professionals, reaching up to 70% at surge. The strengths, weaknesses, costs and effects of these models, and benefits of retaining them, remain uncertain. Lower nurse-staffing levels, and high workload, have been associated with adverse outcomes for patients, staff and organisations although ICU-specific evidence is limited. Studies focus on levels of RNs, contributing little to understanding consequences of changes retained post-COVID, or to guiding adoption of alternative staffing models. It is unclear how changes in staffing or specific models affect various outcomes.
Aim: To identify the key components of an optimal nurse staffing model for deployment in ICU.
Objectives/Methods: Guided by a realist framework, the investigators propose to interlink workstreams (WS) over 2 years to allow cross-fertilisation of ideas/hypotheses and inform emerging programme theories.
Analysis: Data integration occurs across all workstreams in WS 5. Theories developed from WS2 case studies will be further tested against WS 3 observational data and inform WS 4 mathematical simulation models of ICU capacity, patient outcomes and patient flow, to inform emerging propositions for the realist evaluation programme theories as context-mechanism-outcome configurations.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Interviews with nursing staff
Inclusion criteria
Interviews with regional managers/commissioners • Regional managers/commissioners who have been working in their role and in the ICU field for at least one year.
Inclusion criteria
Interviews with patients/families
Exclusion criteria
-
Non-interventional (Realist Evaluation study)
Time frame: 2019-2023
Mortality
Time frame: 2019-2023
Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs)
Time frame: 2019-2023
Death/discharge to LTC
Time frame: 2019-2023
ICU-acquired infection
Time frame: 2019-2023
Days of organ support in ICU (per organ)
Time frame: 2019-2023
Cost of ICU and post-ICU stay (in hospital)
Time frame: 2019-2023
Sickness and absence (and associated costs)
University of Hertfordshire
Other
Acronym: SEISMIC-R
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07387731
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
View Trial DetailsNCT01463579
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Antrim, Co. Antrim, United Kingdom
View Trial DetailsNCT01607723
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Montpellier, France
View Trial DetailsNCT00695383
Critical Illness, Deconditioning
Leuven, Vlaams-Brabant, Belgium
View Trial Details