This satisfaction means the turnover rate in these hospitals is far lower than it is for non-magnet nurses.
Nurses also report a higher level of job satisfaction at Magnet hospitals, including being appreciated by doctors for their medical knowledge. Nurses in Magnet hospitals earn nearly 5% more than those who work in Non-Magnet facilities.
Since a Minnesota Magnet hospital holds nurses to a higher standard, most often they also pay for it. To earn this credential, hospitals must display exceptional nursing standards and provide good working conditions for their nurses. In order to emphasize the importance of excellence in medical care, the American Nurses Credential Center manages a Magnet Hospital Program. What’s a Magnet Hospital and Why Should Nurses Care? Since the doctor would be held responsible for anything his/her nurse practitioner prescribes, he/she may elect to either not give a NP that authority, or may limit it to specific types of medications. However, if they prescribe medication, they do need supervision of a physician, and it is up to that physician to determine what types of medications the NP can or cannot prescribe. Nurse practitioners work independently, and they do not need a supervisory relationship with a physician to see patients.
Because of the doctor shortage, there are many NPs that serve as primary care physicians for Minnesotans. In 2011, there were 56,660 RNs in the state, and 2,913 Nurse Practitioners. We suggest that decentralized system hospitals may be missing potential benefits of such organizational innovations.Since there is a doctor shortage in Minnesota, Registered Nurses and Nurse Practitioners take on a strong role in the state’s health care. We identify factors associated with Magnet adoption across system hospitals and demonstrate the importance of considering diffusion of organizational innovations in relation to system centralization. The findings are relevant to health care and nursing administrators and policymakers interested in the diffusion of an empirically supported organizational innovation associated with quality outcomes, particularly in a time of increasing hospital consolidation and system expansion. Hospital systems take an organizational perspective toward Magnet adoption, whereby more system affiliates achieve Magnet recognition over time. Hospitals belonging to centralized systems were more reactive to Magnet adoption of nonaffiliate hospitals as compared with those in decentralized systems.
Prior adoption by affiliates and nonaffiliates in geographically distant markets had a lesser effect. Prior Magnet adoption by a hospital within the local market was associated with an increased likelihood of a given system hospital becoming Magnet, but the effect was larger if there was prior adoption by affiliates (7.4% higher likelihood) versus nonaffiliates (2.7% higher likelihood). The proportion of Magnet hospitals belonging to a system is increasing. We used hospital level fixed-effects regressions to capture changes in a given system hospital's Magnet status over time in relation to a variety of conditions, including prior Magnet adoption by system affiliates and nonaffiliates in local and geographically distant markets and whether these relationships varied by degree of system centralization. Using American Hospital Association surveys (1998-2012), we characterized the proportion of Magnet hospitals belonging to systems. The aim of the study was to examine Magnet adoption among hospital systems over time. Concurrently, hospital systems are becoming a more prominent feature of the U.S. Magnet hospitals are recognized for nursing excellence and high-value patient outcomes, yet little is known about which and when hospitals pursue Magnet recognition.
0 kommentar(er)
