The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lower Mortality in Magnet Hospitals
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is evidence that hospitals recognized for nursing excellence--Magnet hospitals--are successful in attracting and retaining nurses, it is uncertain whether Magnet recognition is associated with better patient outcomes than non-Magnets, and if so why. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether Magnet hospitals have lower risk-adjusted mortality and failure-to-rescue compared with non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the most likely explanations. METHOD AND STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of linked patient, nurse, and hospital data on 56 Magnet and 508 non-Magnet hospitals. Logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in the odds of mortality and failure-to-rescue for surgical patients treated in Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the extent to which differences in outcomes can be explained by nursing after accounting for patient and hospital differences. RESULTS: Magnet hospitals had significantly better work environments and higher proportions of nurses with bachelor's degrees and specialty certification. These nursing factors explained much of the Magnet hospital effect on patient outcomes. However, patients treated in Magnet hospitals had 14% lower odds of mortality (odds ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P=0.02) and 12% lower odds of failure-to-rescue (odds ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01; P=0.07) while controlling for nursing factors as well as hospital and patient differences. CONCLUSIONS: The lower mortality we find in Magnet hospitals is largely attributable to measured nursing characteristics but there is a mortality advantage above and beyond what we could measure. Magnet recognition identifies existing quality and stimulates further positive organizational behavior that improves patient outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity
White, H. (1980) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912934 · Cited by 25,861
Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data
Quan, H., Sundararajan, V., Halfon, P., Fong, A., Burnand, B., Luthi, J.-C., Saunders, L. D., Beck, C. A., Feasby, T. E., & Ghali, W. A. (2005) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83 · Cited by 10,669
Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D. R., & Coffey, R. M. (1998) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 · Cited by 9,921
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448 · cited 1×
“The residual association between Magnet recognition and outcomes likely signifies a complex organizational condition such as the institution’s commitment to excellence or willingness to undertake organizational innovation.(32,42) These conditions can have positive spillover effects and contribute to a work environment…”
BackgroundMatching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Hospital Nurse Staffing and Patient Mortality, Nurse Burnout, and Job Dissatisfaction
Aiken, L. H. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.16.1987 · Cited by 5,226
Self-citationKimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256170 · Cited by 2,468
Nurse-Staffing Levels and the Quality of Care in Hospitals
Needleman, J., Buerhaus, P., Mattke, S., Stewart, M., & Zelevinsky, K. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa012247 · Cited by 2,241
Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index†‡
Lake, E. T. (2002) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.10032 · Cited by 1,769
Educational Levels of Hospital Nurses and Surgical Patient Mortality
Aiken, L. H. (2003) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.290.12.1617 · Cited by 1,724
Self-citation
Cited by
Work engagement in professional nursing practice: A systematic review
Keyko, K., Cummings, G. G., Yonge, O., & Wong, C. A. (2016) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.06.003 · Cited by 331
Van Bogaert, P., Timmermans, O., Weeks, S. M., van Heusden, D., Wouters, K., & Franck, E. (2014) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.009 · Cited by 324
Whitehead, L., Ghosh, M., Walker, D. K., Bloxsome, D., Vafeas, C., & Wilkinson, A. (2019) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.02.001 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- McHugh, M. D., Kelly, L. A., Smith, H. L., Wu, E. S., Vanak, J. M., & Aiken, L. H.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 382-388
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065007452
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 62.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lower Mortality in Magnet Hospitals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182726cc5
- The paper
- McHugh, M. D., Kelly, L. A., Smith, H. L., Wu, E. S., Vanak, J. M., & Aiken, L. H. (2013). Lower Mortality in Magnet Hospitals. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182726cc5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.