Fewer Nurses Means Higher Patient Death Risk

Researchers found a 2 percent increase in a patient's risk of death for each nursing work shift that was understaffed. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Wanna get out of the hospital alive? Well, the nursing staff has a lot to do with it. Now a study finds that a patient’s risk of dying goes up along with the number of work shifts that a hospital is understaffed in nurses. The research was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. [Jack Needleman et al., "Nurse Staffing and Inpatient Hospital Mortality"]

The study included almost 198,000 patients, during nearly 177,000 eight-hour nursing shifts.

The research team originally reported that hospital nurse staffing was tied to patients’ outcomes a decade ago. That study was challenged because data were collected at several institutions, and thus had numerous possibly confounding variables. In the current study, all data were collected at a single, large academic medical center in the U.S.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers found that a patient’s risk of death increased by about two percent for each work shift that was what the researchers categorized as understaffed. Patients in the study averaged three such shifts, which meant that their risk of dying increased by more than six percent compared with patients with access to fully staffed nursing teams. So when it comes to nurses it’s about quality—and quantity.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe