This is an original excerpt written by our team to show structure, depth and referencing. It is modelled on the course named above but is not a university document. Use samples as a study guide and follow your school's academic integrity policy.
Thesis
States should set minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. The evidence links each extra patient per nurse with worse outcomes, and a law that set ratios in Australia was followed by lower mortality.
Argument 1: Staffing affects whether patients survive
In a study of 168 Pennsylvania hospitals, linking surveys of 10,184 nurses with outcomes for 232,342 surgical patients, each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% increase in the odds of dying within 30 days of admission and a 7% increase in the odds of failure to rescue (death after a complication). Each additional patient was also linked with a 23% increase in the odds of nurse burnout and a 15% increase in job dissatisfaction (Aiken et al., 2002). When nurses have too many patients, they have less time to notice the early signs of complications.
Argument 2: Ratio laws have improved outcomes
In 2016, Queensland, Australia, required minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in selected public hospitals. McHugh et al. (2021) compared 27 hospitals covered by the policy with 28 that discharged similar patients but were not. Two years after implementation, mortality was lower than at baseline in the ratio hospitals (adjusted odds ratio 0.89) but not in the comparison hospitals. Readmissions rose in comparison hospitals but not in ratio hospitals, and length of stay fell more in ratio hospitals. The improvements were linked with the better staffing the policy produced, which strengthens the case that the ratios, not some other change, made the difference.
Argument 3: Nurses stay when staffing is safe
Burnout and dissatisfaction rise with workload (Aiken et al., 2002), and nurses who burn out are more likely to leave. Safe ratios can reduce the cycle in which short staffing causes turnover, which causes more short staffing.
Counterarguments and responses
"Ratios are too expensive." Ratios do add staffing costs. But in the Queensland study, shorter stays and fewer readmissions offset part of the cost, and failure to rescue and readmissions carry their own costs for hospitals and patients.
"There aren't enough nurses." Shortages are real in some areas. A law can be phased in, paired with funding for nursing education, and written with emergency exemptions. Better staffing may also bring back nurses who left hospital work because of unsafe conditions.
"Fixed numbers ignore patient acuity." A ratio is a minimum floor, not a ceiling. Hospitals can and should staff above it when patients are sicker, using acuity tools alongside the law.
Conclusion
California has required hospital nurse ratios since 2004, and Queensland's experience adds evidence from a prospective study of a ratio law. Taken with decades of research linking staffing to survival, the evidence supports minimum ratios as a patient safety standard. Nurses should share this evidence with legislators and in their professional organizations.
References
Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J., & Silber, J. H. (2002). Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. JAMA, 288(16), 1987–1993. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.16.1987
McHugh, M. D., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Windsor, C., Douglas, C., & Yates, P. (2021). Effects of nurse-to-patient ratio legislation on nurse staffing and patient mortality, readmissions, and length of stay: A prospective study in a panel of hospitals. The Lancet, 397(10288), 1905–1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00768-6
