IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/96chedp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring nursing workload: a cautionary tale

Author

Listed:
  • Sue Jenkins-Clarke

Abstract

The need to develop methods of measuring nursing workload is not new, but the search for accurate measures to calculate the demand for nursing has assumed greater significance in recent years owing to the advent of resource management and the necessity to manage efficiently the most costly resource in the NHS; that of nursing. Currently there are 23 Nurse Management Systems available to choose from and of these, some are ward nurse tracking systems/nurse deployment or rostering systems, some are designed to provide workload requirements, and others, which tend to be those introduced most recently, serve a care-planning function. This paper examines the methodologies and instruments used for measuring nursing workload and describes the rationale for selecting four Nursing Workload Management Systems (NWMs) for review. Integral to every NWM calculation is a series of parameters or assumptions. These parameters are derived, in most cases, from the results of activity analysis undertaken at the site where the chosen NWM is being implemented. The choice of basic parameters appropriate to individual wards/units is a crucial factor in the derivation of workload estimates and the financial consequences of these choices can range from £28,000 to £64,000 per annum per ward. There is general agreement that efficient nursing utilisation is becoming increasingly urgent in the “new” NHS. Whilst the reliability of all NWM systems is being questioned in the USA, criticism of NWM systems in the UK tends to be confined to certain aspects of a particular system or approach rather than to workload measurement as a whole. This UK perspective must be widened by the recognition of the fundamental weaknesses of reliability and consistency of NWM systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Sue Jenkins-Clarke, 1992. "Measuring nursing workload: a cautionary tale," Working Papers 096chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:96chedp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%2096.pdf
    File Function: First version, 1992
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nursing; workload;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:96chedp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.