Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to contrast a mobility acuity tool with an objective, comprehensive patient acuity tool (PAT). The mobility acuity tool subjectively describes the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) based on a progressive Likert scale. A comprehensive PAT is a standardized system that can be integrated into electronic health records (EHR), quantifying the severity of a patient’s condition and evaluating identified nursing tasks to determine the level of care required in an evolving twenty-four-hours.
Purpose: This study will explore the differences in scope, implementation, nurse perception, and key performance indicators between a mobility tool and PAT.
Method: A comparative research design was conducted to evaluate the two tools. A SWOT analysis was assessed to determine the effectiveness of a mobility tool that captures acuity levels using four guiding inquiries with a score on a progressive Likert scale (one to five). The PAT was examined for its integration into the EHR, categorizing a range of workload indicators.
Key performance indicators, including patient satisfaction, nursing job satisfaction, and retention rates, were collected and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the mobility tool. Additionally, survey data was gathered from RNs to assess their perceptions of a mobility tool and explore the benefits of integrating a holistic PAT into the EHR.
Additionally, participants were asked to partake in a Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool (HWEAT) to gauge the progress in establishing and sustaining a healthy work environment.
Results: The analysis revealed significant distinctions in the perceptions of the effectiveness of a mobility tool as a comprehensive acuity tool. While helpful in assessing physical mobility, the mobility tool requires more consistency due to its subjective nature and limited scope, leading to inequitable workload distribution according to 64% of the surveyed RNs.
Results from the HWEAT survey revealed a need to address several themes identified by the HWE Standard that impact a healthy working environment for RNs. Preliminary scores within the scoring guidelines of somewhat healthy (3.00-3.99) and needing improvement (<3.00) are as follows: skilled communication (3.06), true collaboration (2.93), appropriate staffing (3.96), meaningful recognition (3.50), and authentic leadership (3.62). Postliminary implementation data is a limitation because the PAT has not been implemented.
Notes
References: American Association of Critical Care Nurses. (2024). AACN: Healthy work environment assessment tool - RN version team results.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, April 17). Occupational outlook handbook, registered nurses. US Department of Labor. Retrieved August 24, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/registered-nurses.htm
Clinical voices March 2023. (n.d.). American Association of Critical-Care Nurses - AACN. https://www.aacn.org/newsroom/clinical-voices-march-2023
Cronie, D., Rosman, A., & Vries, R. (2022). Measure to improve: Is there a patient acuity measurement tool suitable for use in maternity service provision in The Netherlands? A systematic review. Health Science Reports, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.756
Eastman, D., & Kernan, K. (2022). A new patient acuity tool to support equitable patient assignments in a progressive care unit. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 45(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/cnq.0000000000000388
Jones, L. W., & Hall, V. L. (2022). Acuity-based staffing in labor and delivery using electronic health record data. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 47(5), 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmc.0000000000000838
Ko, Y., Park, B., Lee, H., & Kim, D. (2022). Development of a patient classification system for critical care nursing based on nursing intensity. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.13128
Strusowski, T. (2022, April). Defining the complexity of patients through an acuity tool: A scoping review. Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship. https://www.jons-online.com/issues/2022/april-2022-vol-13-no-4/4495-defining-the-complexity-of-patients-through-an-acuity-tool-a-scoping-review
Ulrich, B., Cassidy, L., Barden, C., Varn-Davis, N., & Delgado, S. A. (2022). National nurse work environments - October 2021: A status report. Critical Care Nurse, 42(5), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2022798
Sigma Membership
Non-member
Type
Presentation
Format Type
Text-based Document
Study Design/Type
N/A
Research Approach
N/A
Keywords:
Instrument/tool development, Workforce, Acute care
Recommended Citation
Mathews, Carrundlas D., "Comparative Analysis of Patient Acuity Tools: Enhancing Nursing Efficiency With an EHR Acuity Tool" (2025). Creating Healthy Work Environments (CHWE). 16.
https://www.sigmarepository.org/chwe/2025/presentations_2025/16
Conference Name
Creating Healthy Work Environments
Conference Host
Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Conference Year
2025
Rights Holder
All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record.
Review Type
Abstract Review Only: Reviewed by Event Host
Acquisition
Proxy-submission
Comparative Analysis of Patient Acuity Tools: Enhancing Nursing Efficiency With an EHR Acuity Tool
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Introduction: This study aims to contrast a mobility acuity tool with an objective, comprehensive patient acuity tool (PAT). The mobility acuity tool subjectively describes the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) based on a progressive Likert scale. A comprehensive PAT is a standardized system that can be integrated into electronic health records (EHR), quantifying the severity of a patient’s condition and evaluating identified nursing tasks to determine the level of care required in an evolving twenty-four-hours.
Purpose: This study will explore the differences in scope, implementation, nurse perception, and key performance indicators between a mobility tool and PAT.
Method: A comparative research design was conducted to evaluate the two tools. A SWOT analysis was assessed to determine the effectiveness of a mobility tool that captures acuity levels using four guiding inquiries with a score on a progressive Likert scale (one to five). The PAT was examined for its integration into the EHR, categorizing a range of workload indicators.
Key performance indicators, including patient satisfaction, nursing job satisfaction, and retention rates, were collected and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the mobility tool. Additionally, survey data was gathered from RNs to assess their perceptions of a mobility tool and explore the benefits of integrating a holistic PAT into the EHR.
Additionally, participants were asked to partake in a Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool (HWEAT) to gauge the progress in establishing and sustaining a healthy work environment.
Results: The analysis revealed significant distinctions in the perceptions of the effectiveness of a mobility tool as a comprehensive acuity tool. While helpful in assessing physical mobility, the mobility tool requires more consistency due to its subjective nature and limited scope, leading to inequitable workload distribution according to 64% of the surveyed RNs.
Results from the HWEAT survey revealed a need to address several themes identified by the HWE Standard that impact a healthy working environment for RNs. Preliminary scores within the scoring guidelines of somewhat healthy (3.00-3.99) and needing improvement (<3.00) are as follows: skilled communication (3.06), true collaboration (2.93), appropriate staffing (3.96), meaningful recognition (3.50), and authentic leadership (3.62). Postliminary implementation data is a limitation because the PAT has not been implemented.
Description
This study proposed standardizing an acuity system within an EHR, which would allow for the classification of nursing workload indicators. PATs may only be a click away from improving empirical outcomes, nursing job satisfaction, and an equitable working environment.