Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare a variety of resident and staff outcomes across two types of staffing patterns, permanent and rotating assignment, and work shift. Although studies have examined these staffing patterns as part of multicomponent intervention packages, few studies have examined the isolated effects of staffing pattern by using an experimental design. DESIGN AND METHODS: A between-groups comparison design was used to compare residents and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) from four nursing homes; two self-identified as using permanent assignment (PA) staffing and two as using rotating assignment (RA) staffing. Measures yielded data on verbal interaction among residents and staff, resident disruptive behavior, and specific aspects of resident-staff behavior during care routines. Other assessments included resident personal appearance and hygiene, expressed affect, and CNAs' job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and turnover rates. A treatment fidelity check was conducted to confirm PA and RA staffing patterns. RESULTS: Staffing patterns were significantly different between self-identified PA and RA nursing homes. Residents in PA nursing homes and on morning shifts received significantly higher ratings of personal appearance and hygiene. Rates of expressed sadness and interest among residents differed by staffing patterns and shift. However, these differences do not appear to be clinically significant. Although absenteeism was higher in PA nursing homes, these CNAs reported greater job satisfaction than CNAs from RA nursing homes. As expected, evening shifts across nursing homes had significantly higher turnover rates and significantly more resident disruptive behavior. IMPLICATIONS: Quality-of-care outcomes were similar among the two types of nursing homes, despite significantly different staffing patterns. Though staff permanency rates in PA nursing homes (50%) were twice that of RA nursing homes (26%), more research is needed to determine feasibility of higher rates of staff permanency (i.e., > 50%) and effects on resident and CNA outcomes.
Burgio et al. (Tue,) studied this question.