Comparison of the Value of Nursing Work Environments in Hospitals Across Different Levels of Patient Risk

IMPORTANCE: The literature suggests that hospitals with better nursing work environments provide better quality of care. Less is known about value (cost vs quality). OBJECTIVES: To test whether hospitals with better nursing work environments displayed better value than those with worse nursing environments and to determine patient risk groups associated with the greatest value. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective matched-cohort design, comparing the outcomes and cost of patients at focal hospitals recognized nationally as having good nurse working environments and nurse-to-bed ratios of 1 or greater with patients at control group hospitals without such recognition and with nurse-to-bed ratios less than 1. This study included 25 752 elderly Medicare general surgery patients treated at focal hospitals and 62 882 patients treated at control hospitals during 2004-2006 in Illinois, New York, and Texas. The study was conducted between January 1, 2004, and November 30, 2006; this analysis was conducted from April to August 2015. EXPOSURES: Focal vs control hospitals (better vs worse nursing environment). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality and costs reflecting resource utilization. RESULTS: This study was conducted at 35 focal hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 1.51) and 293 control hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 0.69). Focal hospitals were larger and more teaching and technology intensive than control hospitals. Thirty-day mortality in focal hospitals was 4.8% vs 5.8% in control hospitals (P