Among Nursing and Psychology professionals, the job satisfaction of those in Adult Inpatient Units is analyzed, with a new scale to measure nursing workloads validated. Objective: The objective of this study was to relate nursing workloads to professional job satisfaction. Methods: This is an observational, analytical, descriptive, concurrent and quantitative study, which used the Overall Job Satisfaction scale and subscales therein, to identify global satisfaction—intrinsic or related to motivational factors and extrinsic or associated with hygienic factors—in nursing professionals (n = 104) from eight Inpatient Units of Internal Medicine and Surgery, in four hospital centers, to describe job satisfaction in the professionals studied and to find statistically significant associations between job satisfaction and workload (measured with the scale MIDENF^®) in the inpatient units where they work. Results: There were higher levels of satisfaction in the variables “relationship with immediate boss” and “relationship with fellow workers”, and lower levels in “relationship with senior management” and “organizational system of the unit”. In the inferential analysis, the scores were 75.63 for overall satisfaction, 35.28 for intrinsic satisfaction, and 40.36 for extrinsic satisfaction. Conclusions: There is a close relationship between workload and job satisfaction, showing more dissatisfaction regarding organizational aspects and professional recognition.

Introduction A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of natalizumab has been recently authorised for multiple sclerosis patients. This study aimed to assess the implications of the new SC formulation, and to compare the annual treatment costs of SC versus intravenous (IV) natalizumab therapy from both the Spanish healthcare system (direct health cost) and the patient (indirect cost) perspectives. Methods A patient care pathway map and a cost-minimisation analysis were developed to estimate SC and IV natalizumab annual costs over a 2-year time horizon. Considering the patient care pathway and according to natalizumab experience (IV) or estimation (SC), a national expert panel involving neurologists, pharmacists, and nurses provided information/data regarding resource consumption for drug and patient preparation, administration, and documentation. One hour of observation was applied to the first six (SC) or 12 (IV) doses, and 5 min for successive doses. The Day hospital (infusion suite) facilities at a reference hospital were considered for IV administrations and the first six SC injections. For successive SC injections, either a reference hospital or regional hospital in a consulting room was considered. Productivity time associated with travel (56 min to reference hospital, 24 min to regional hospital) and waiting time pre- and post-treatment (SC 15 min, IV 25 min) were assessed for patients and caregivers (accompanying 20% of SC and 35% of IV administrations). National salaries for healthcare professionals were used for cost estimation (€, year 2021). Results At years 1 and 2, total time and cost savings (excluding drug acquisition cost) per patient, driven by saving on administration and patient and caregiver productivity for SC at a reference hospital versus IV at a reference hospital, were 116 h (a reduction of 54.6%) and €3682.82 (a reduction of 66.2%). In the case of natalizumab SC at a regional hospital, the total time and cost saving were 129 h (a reduction of 60.6%) and €3883.47 (a reduction of 69.8%). Conclusions Besides the potential benefits of convenient administration and improving work–life balance, as suggested by the expert panel, natalizumab SC was associated with cost savings for the healthcare system by avoiding drug preparation, reducing administration time, and freeing up infusion suite capacity. Additional cost savings could be derived with regional hospital administration of natalizumab SC by reducing productivity loss.

We conducted validation of a scale to measure nursing workloads, previously designed using NIC interventions within the four nursing functions (patient care, teaching, management, and research). Methods: This is an analytical, descriptive, prospective, and observational study using qualitative methodology (focus groups and in-depth interviews) with a quantitative and qualitative section (committee of experts and real application of the scale through a validation pilot and with multicentric application, including hospitalization units of internal medicine and surgery of four hospitals). Qualitative analysis was performed with Atlas.ti8 and quantitative analysis with R. Results: Qualitatively, all the participants agreed on the need to measure workloads in all nursing functions with standardized terminology. The expert committee found greater relevance (91.67%) in “prevention” and “health education” as well as consistency with the construct and adequate wording in 99% of the selected items. In the pilot test and multicenter application, the nurses spent more time on the caring dimension, in the morning shift, and on the items “self-care”, “medication”, “health education”, “care of invasive procedures”, “wounds care”, “comfort”, and “fluid therapy”. Cronbach’s alpha 0.727, composite reliability 0.685, AVE 0.099, and omega coefficient 0.704 were all acceptable. Construct validity: KMO 0.5 and Bartlett’s test were significant. Conclusions: The scale can be considered valid to measure nursing workloads, both qualitatively in obtaining the consensus of experts and health personnel and quantitatively, with acceptable reliability and validity superior to other similar scales.

The study aimed to the multicenter application of a nursing workload measurement scale in the internal medicine and surgery adults hospitalization units. The study design was a multicenter, observational, and descriptive study. A multicenter application of the MIDENF® nursing workload measurement scale was carried out, which consists of 21 items, and covers the four nursing functions (patient care items, teaching, manager, and researcher), in units of hospitalization of adults of internal medicine and surgery of four different hospitals. Each item contains one or more of the nursing interventions of Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) and has an assigned time, after comparing the real time it takes to perform each intervention with the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA) standardized time. The study was carried out during nine months of the year 2020, measuring two days each month in the three work shifts (morning, evening, and night) to all patients admitted on the days of measurement in the indicated units. The descriptive and inferential analysis of 11,756 completed scales, 5,695 in general surgery and 6,061 in internal medicine, showed a greater care load for the two units during the morning shift (227,034 min in general surgery, 261,835 min in internal medicine), especially in the items of “self-care”, “medication”, “common invasive procedures”, “fluid therapy”, and “patient and family support”, while the managerial function was similar during the three work shifts in the two units studied, getting values between 57,348 and 62,901 min. In the analysis by shift and unit, statistical significance was obtained both for the total workload and the four nursing functions(P < 0.001). It is shown that the use of validated scales with the standardized language of nursing functions, adapted to the units, provides objective information to adjust the nursing staff to the real situation of care in any hospital and unit where it is applied, improving quality and patient safety.

RESUMEN Objetivo: Determinar cuál de las escalas evaluadas (NEMS y NAS), es más adecuada para Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos aplicando metodología de calidad. Método: Tras identificar como oportunidad de mejora la no adecuación de la escala NEMS para determinar cargas de trabajo de enfermería en UCI, se aplica metodología de los ciclos de mejora a dicha escala y a la NAS, como propuesta de mejora, evaluando los criterios: medición de cargas de trabajo al día y por turno, inclusión de todas las actividades enfermeras, y análisis por paciente y unidad. Resultados: Escala NEMS no muestra diferencias significativas en el cumplimiento (67%). Comparación NEMS-NAS, todos los criterios excepto el 1º, obtienen mejora significativa. NEMS sólo valora el criterio 1 (64,22%), y NAS todos con un cumplimiento para el 1º, 2º y 4º del 64,74%, y el 3º del 100%. Conclusión: La escala NAS es más adecuada para medir cargas de trabajo de enfermería en UCI.

Resumo Objetivo Projetar e validar uma escala para medir a carga de trabalho de enfermagem em Unidades de Internação de Adultos com base na Classificação de Intervenções de Enfermagem (NIC). Métodos Estudo analítico, descritivo, observacional, prospectivo, utilizando principalmente metodologia de pesquisa qualitativa, por meio de grupos focais, comitê de especialistas e entrevistas individuais, para validar uma Escala de Medição da Carga de Trabalho em Unidades de Internação de Adultos, a partir das intervenções selecionadas (NIC), com base nas características inerentes [...] Resumo Objetivo Projetar e validar uma escala para medir a carga de trabalho de enfermagem em Unidades de Internação de Adultos com base na Classificação de Intervenções de Enfermagem (NIC). Métodos Estudo analítico, descritivo, observacional, prospectivo, utilizando principalmente metodologia de pesquisa qualitativa, por meio de grupos focais, comitê de especialistas e entrevistas individuais, para validar uma Escala de Medição da Carga de Trabalho em Unidades de Internação de Adultos, a partir das intervenções selecionadas (NIC), com base nas características inerentes