Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 38, Issue 9, pp 1438–1444

Measuring the nursing workload per shift in the ICU

  • Dieter P. Debergh
  • Dries Myny
  • Isabelle Van Herzeele
  • Georges Van Maele
  • Dinis Reis Miranda
  • Francis Colardyn



In the intensive care unit (ICU) different strategies and workload measurement tools exist to indicate the number of nurses needed. The gathered information is always focused on manpower needed per 24 h. However, a day consists of several shifts, which may be unequal in nursing workload. The aim of this study was to evaluate if differences in nursing workload between consecutive shifts can be identified by a nursing workload measurement tool.


The nursing activities score (NAS) was registered per patient for every shift during a 4-week period in a prospective, observational research project in the surgical-pediatric ICU (SICU-PICU) and medical ICU (MICU) of an academic hospital.


The NAS was influenced by the patient characteristics and the type of shift. Furthermore, the scores were lower during night shifts, in weekends and in MICU patients. Overall, the mean NAS per nurse per shift was 85.5 %, and the NAS per 24 h was 54.7 %.


This study has shown that the nursing workload can be measured per working shift. In the ICU, the NAS differentiates the nursing workload between shifts, patients and units.


Nursing Workload Shift Intensive care unit NAS 

Supplementary material

134_2012_2648_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (195 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 194 kb)


  1. 1.
    Oulton JA (2006) The global nursing shortage: an overview of issues and actions. Policy Politics Nurs Pract 7:34S–39SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Sax H, Duncan RA, Pittet D (2004) Nursing resources: a major determinant of nosocomial infection? Curr Opin Infect Dis 17:329–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halwani M, Solaymani-Dodaran M, Grundmann H, Coupland C, Slack R (2006) Cross-transmission of nosocomial pathogens in an adult intensive care unit: incidence and risk factors. J Hosp Infect 63:39–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grundmann H, Hori S, Winter B, Tami A, Austin DJ (2002) Risk factors for the transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an adult intensive care unit: fitting a model to the data. J Infect Dis 185:481–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vicca AF (1999) Nursing staff workload as a determinant of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus spread in an adult intensive therapy unit. J Hosp Infect 43:109–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amaravadi RK, Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA (2000) ICU nurse-to-patient ratio is associated with complications and resource use after esophagectomy. Intensive Care Med 26:1857–1862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dang D, Johantgen ME, Pronovost PJ, Jenckes MW, Bass EB (2002) Postoperative complications: does intensive care unit staff nursing make a difference? Heart Lung 31:219–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pronovost PJ, Dang D, Jenckes MW, Dorman T, Garrett E, Bass E (1999) ICU nurse to patient ratio greater than 1 to 2 associated with an increased risk of complications in abdominal aortic surgery patients. Crit Care Med 27(S12):A27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pronovost PJ, Jenckes MW, Dorman T, Garrett E, Breslow MJ, Rosenfeld BA, Lipsett PA, Bass E (1999) Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery. JAMA 281:1310–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dimick JB, Swoboda SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA (2001) Effect of nurse-to-patient ratio in the intensive care unit on pulmonary complications and resource use after hepatectomy. Am J Crit Care 10:376–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho SH, Yun SC (2009) Bed-to-nurse ratios, provision of basic nursing care, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality among acute stroke patients admitted to an intensive care unit: cross-sectional analysis of survey and administrative data. Int J Nurs Stud 46:1092–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tarnow-Mordi WO, Hau C, Warden A, Shearer AJ (2000) Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit. Lancet 356:185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cho SH, June KJ, Kim YM, Cho YA, Yoo CS, Yun SC, Sung YH (2009) Nurse staffing, quality of nursing care and nurse job outcomes in intensive care units. J Clin Nurs 18:1729–1737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verdon M, Merlani P, Perneger T, Ricou B (2008) Burnout in a surgical ICU team. Intensive Care Med 34:152–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keene AR, Cullen DJ (1983) Therapeutic intervention scoring system: update 1983. Crit Care Med 11:1–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Italian Multicenter Group of ICU research (GIRTI) (1991) Time oriented score system (TOSS): a method for direct and quantitative assessment of nursing workload for ICU patients. Intensive Care Med 17:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saulnier F, Descamps JM, De Pouvourville G, Durocher A, Blettery B, Carlet J, Fraisse F, Nicolas F, Lardet P, Hubert H, Loyez S, Sion D (1992) Management of ICUs. A simplified index to assess the nurse workload: ICU PRN. Intensive Care Med 18:S71 (129)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jansen CA (1993) Reliability, validity and usefullness of the TAS (Therapeutic activity score). For patient classification in an intensive care unit. Verpleegkunde 8:19–25 (Article in Dutch)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Aken GH, de Vries G (1993) WICSS, or the Weezenlanden Intensive Care Scoring System (1). A reliable workload measuring tool for the ICU. Tvz 9:318–322 (Article in Dutch)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miranda DR, de Rijk A, Schaufeli W (1996) Simplified Therapeutic intervention scoring system: the TISS-28 items—results from a multicenter study. Crit Care Med 24:64–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reis Miranda D, Moreno R, Iapichino G (1997) Nine equivalents of nursing manpower use score (NEMS). Intensive Care Med 23:760–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sznajder M, Leleu G, Buonamico G, Auvert B, Aegerter P, Merliere Y, Dutheil M, Guidet B, Le Gall JR (1998) Estimation of direct cost and resource allocation in intensive care: correlation with Omega system. Intensive Care Med 24:582–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pyykko AK, Laurila J, Ala-Kokko TI, Hentinen M, Janhonen SA (2000) Intensive care nursing scoring system. Part 1: classification of nursing diagnoses. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 16:345–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pyykko AK, Laurila J, Ala-Kokko TI, Hentinen M (2001) Intensive Care Nursing Scoring System Part 2: nursing interventions and nursing outcomes. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 17:16–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanique G, Bossaert L, Roger-France F (2003) SAPI : Score des Activités et des Pathologies en Soins Intensifs ou Intégration de la Fonction Intensive dans la Fonction Hospitalière. Université Catholique de Louvain, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miranda DR, Nap R, De Rijk A, Schaufeli W, Iapichino G (2003) Nursing activities score. Crit Care Med 31:374–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cullen DJ, Civetta JM, Briggs BA, Ferrara LC (1974) Therapeutic intervention scoring system: a method for quantitative comparison of patient care. Crit Care Med 2:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Castillo-Lorente E, Rivera-Fernandez R, Rodriguez-Elvira M, Vazquez-Mata G (2000) Tiss 76 and Tiss 28: correlation of two therapeutic activity indices on a Spanish multicenter ICU database. Intensive Care Med 26:57–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iapichino G, Gattinoni L, Radrizzani D, Simini B, Bertolini G, Ferla L, Mistraletti G, Porta F, Miranda DR (2004) Volume of activity and occupancy rate in intensive care units. Association with mortality. Intensive Care Med 30:290–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lefering R, Zart M, Neugebauer EA (2000) Retrospective evaluation of the simplified Therapeutic intervention scoring system (TISS-28) in a surgical intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 26:1794–1802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Padilha KG, de Sousa RM, Queijo AF, Mendes AM, Reis Miranda D (2008) Nursing activities score in the intensive care unit: analysis of the related factors. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 24:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akcan-Arikan A, Zappitelli M, Loftis LL, Washburn KK, Jefferson LS, Goldstein SL (2007) Modified RIFLE criteria in critically ill children with acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 71:1028–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rothen HU, Kung V, Ryser DH, Zurcher R, Regli B (1999) Validation of “nine equivalents of nursing manpower use score” on an independent data sample. Intensive Care Med 25:606–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miranda DR, Nap R, de Rijk A, Schaufeli W, Iapichino G (2003) Nursing activities score: instructions for use. Article plus. Crit Care Med 31(1–2):374–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sousa CR, Goncalves LA, Toffoleto MC, Leao K, Padilha KG (2008) Predictors of nursing workload in elderly patients admitted to intensive care units. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 16:218–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laporta DP, Burns J, Doig CJ (2005) Bench-to-bedside review: dealing with increased intensive care unit staff turnover: a leadership challenge. Crit Care 9:454–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Copyright jointly held by Springer and ESICM 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter P. Debergh
    • 1
  • Dries Myny
    • 2
  • Isabelle Van Herzeele
    • 3
  • Georges Van Maele
    • 4
  • Dinis Reis Miranda
    • 5
  • Francis Colardyn
    • 1
  1. 1.Intensive CareGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Nursing DepartmentGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Thoracic and Vascular SurgeryGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Division of Medical StatisticsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Intensive CareUniversity Hospital GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations