Chapter 46. Magnet Environments for Professional 

Nursing Practice 

Vicki A. Lundmark 

Background 

In hospital settings, nurses fulfill two roles. Based upon expert knowledge, nurses provide 

care to the ill or prevent illness. Nurses also maintain and manage the environment surrounding 

the delivery of care, which has increasingly involved coordinating the care activities provided by 

other health care providers. Of three reports published since the year 2000 by the Institute of 

Medicine,1–3 the 2004 report on patient safety was the first to emphasize the connection between 

nursing, patient safety, and quality of care. The report specifically noted the importance of 

organizational management practices, strong nursing leadership, and adequate nurse staffing for 

providing a safe care environment. The report also noted how frequently the patient safety 

practices identified by the literature “were the same as those recommended by organizations 

studying the nursing shortage, worker safety, and patient satisfaction”3 (p. 317). 

While it seems logical to assume that safe and effective patient care depends on the presence 

of “an organizational context that enables the best performance from each health 

professional”4 (p. 186), remarkably little knowledge has accumulated about how the organization 

and delivery of nursing services influences patient outcomes. One explanation for this situation is 

that health services research so firmly turned its focus to organization/environment and 

organization/market questions following the rise of health economics and health maintenance 

organizations (HMOs) in the 1970s that it was caught somewhat unprepared when quality issues 

began to emerge in the latter part of the 1990s. As a result, few conceptual tools exist “to address 

the heart of quality concerns: the internal work processes and arrangements inside health care 

organizations . . . that contribute to variations in quality”5 (p. 318). 

Another limiting factor has been the inherent challenges of measuring organizational practice 

environments and the complexity of nursing’s effects on patient outcomes. Improved theoretical 

frameworks and greater methodological rigor will be needed to guide and advance the nursing 

research on patient outcomes.6, 7 Nursing research has already been leading the way in this effort, 

which may not be surprising given the deep knowledge nurses have of the internal workings of 

health care organizations.5

The magnet hospital concept, originating from a groundbreaking study in the early 1980s8

that sought to explain instances of successful nurse recruitment and retention during a severe 

nurse shortage, provides one framework for specifying the organizational and practice 

environment conditions that support and facilitate nursing excellence. The purpose of this 

chapter is to summarize the magnet research evidence related to nurse or patient outcomes. 

Magnet Hospitals and the Attraction and 

Retention of Professional Nurses 

The original magnet study began in 1981 when the American Academy of Nursing appointed 

a task force to investigate the factors impeding or facilitating professional nursing practice in 

1 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

hospitals. The four researchers on the task force were working from the knowledge that despite a 

nursing shortage for a large number of hospitals, a certain number “had succeeded in creating 

nursing practice organizations that serve as ‘magnets’ for professional nurses; that is, they are 

able to attract and retain a staff of well-qualified nurses and are therefore consistently able to 

provide quality care”8 (p. 2). Therefore, the research goal was set to explore the factors 

associated with success in attracting and retaining professional nurses. 

Through an extensive nominating process, 41 hospitals from across the country were selected 

to participate in the study based upon their known reputations as being good places for nurses to 

work and the evidence they submitted to document a relatively low nurse turnover rate.9 

Subsequently, a series of group interviews was held with representatives from each hospital. 

Two interviews were conducted in each of eight geographically dispersed locations. In the 

morning, one of the task force researchers interviewed the chief nurse executives from the 

participating hospitals in that area. Then, in the afternoon, a second group interview session was 

held with staff nurses. Each staff nurse who participated in the interviews was selected by his or 

her chief nurse executive. 

Based upon their analysis of this interview data, the task force researchers identified and 

defined a set of characteristics that seemed to account for the success the 41 reputational magnet 

hospitals had enjoyed in attracting and keeping a staff of well-qualified nurses at a time when 

other hospitals around them were not able to do so. The labels given to these characteristics, 

which have come to be known as the forces of magnetism, are listed below in Table 1. Many of 

the insights they embody have a long history of study within the sociological literature related to 

organizational performance, leadership, worker autonomy and motivation, decentralized or 

participative management, work design, coordination and communication, effective groups and 

teams, and organizational innovation and change.10 

Table 1. The Magnet Characteristics of a Professional Practice Environment 

Forces of Magnetism 1983 (McClure)8 Forces of Magnetism 2005 (ANCC)11

 Administration 

 Quality of leadership 

 Organizational structure 

 Management style 

 Staffing 

 Personnel policies and programs 

 Professional practice 

 Professional practice models 

 Quality of care 

 Quality assurance 

 Consultation and resources 

 Autonomy 

 Community and the hospital 

 Nurses as teachers 

 Image of nursing 

 Nurse-physician relationships 

 Professional development 

 Orientation 

 In-service and continuing education 

 Formal education 

 Career development 

 1. Quality of nursing leadership 

 2. Organizational structure 

 3. Management style 

 4. Personnel policies and programs 

 [staffing embedded in #4] 

 5. Professional models of care 

 6. Quality of care 

 7. Quality improvement 

 8. Consultation and resources 

 9. Autonomy 

10. Community and the hospital 

11. Nurses as teachers 

12. Image of nursing 

13. Interdisciplinary relationships 

14. Professional development [original 

 subgroups embedded] 

 Note: Order shown in the left column has been slightly rearranged for ease of comparison.

2 
Magnet Recognition Program Impacts

The relationship of a magnet environment to quality was recently described by one of the 

original task force researchers. Looking back on the original magnet study more than 20 years 

later, McClure wrote12 (p. 199),

We found that all these settings had a commonality: their corporate cultures were 

totally supportive of nursing and of quality patient care. What we learned was that 

this culture permeated the entire institution. It was palpable and it seemed to be 

almost a part of the bricks and mortar. Simply stated, these were good places for 

all employees to work (not just nurses) and these were good places for patients to 

receive care. The goal of quality was not only stated in the mission of these 

institutions but it was lived on a daily basis. 

The Magnet Recognition Program® of the American Nurses 

Credentialing Center (ANCC)*

In the early 1990s, the American Nurses Association (ANA) initiated a pilot project to 

develop an evaluation program based upon the conceptual framework identified by the 1983 

magnet research. The program’s infrastructure was established within the newly incorporated 

American Nurses Credentialing Center of the ANA, and the first facility to receive Magnet 

recognition was named in 1994.11 Interest in MagnetTM has been increasingly accelerating. While 

only about 225 organizations have achieved Magnet recognition since the program’s inception, 

nearly two-thirds of them did so within the last 3 years, and the applicant list continues to 

expand. 

Applicants for Magnet recognition undergo a lengthy and comprehensive appraisal process13

to demonstrate that they have met the criteria for all of the forces of magnetism shown in the 

right column of Table 1. Currently, documentation or sources of evidence are required in support 

of 164 topics.11 Organizations that receive high scores on written documentation move to the 

site-visit stage of the appraisal and a period of public comment. The philosophy of the program 

is that nurses function at their peak when a Magnet environment is fully expressed and 

embedded throughout the health care organization, wherever nursing is practiced. Magnet 

organizations submit annual reports and must reapply every 4 years to maintain their recognition. 

In the context of a rapidly evolving health care system, ANCC has the responsibility as a 

credentialing body to continuously refine and improve the criteria it uses for Magnet recognition 

in order to “separate true magnets from those that simply want to achieve the 

recognition”14 (p. 123). ANCC does so by evaluating new information from multiple sources, the 

scholarly research literature, expert groups convened to deliberate specific issues, and feedback 

from Magnet facilities and appraisers, particularly in relation to identifying effective and 

innovative practices. 

Continuity between the original magnet research and ANCC’s Magnet program is provided 

by the conceptual framework for the forces of magnetism. Little has changed in the essential 

definitions for the forces except that ANCC has revised them to reflect contemporary hospital 

settings and elaborated under each force a set of required documentation for applicants to submit 

and appraisers to evaluate. Beginning in 2005, however, an important change appeared in the 

 

*

 The Magnet Recognition Program® and ANCC Magnet Recognition® names and logos are registered trademarks of 

the American Nurses Credentialing Center. MagnetTM is a trademark of the American Nurses Credentialing Center. 

Magnet is capitalized in this chapter when it refers to the ANCC Magnet Recognition Program or to organizations 

that have been designated Magnet by the Magnet Recognition Program. 

3 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

Magnet application process. Whereas previous application manuals had itemized evidence 

requirements according to ANA’s Scope and Standards for Nurse Administrators,

15 the new 

manual version11 reorganized the criteria into the framework of the forces of magnetism. This 

transition should help to clarify the correspondence between the elements ANCC’s Magnet 

program evaluates in its appraisal process and the magnet characteristics that nursing and health 

services researchers study. 

Reviewing the Evidence 

Research studies were retrieved for this review by searching PubMed® and CINAHL® for 

articles referencing magnet or magnetism in the title or abstract. Two inclusion criteria were 

used. (More details can be found below, in “Search Strategy.”) The articles had to (a) report 

findings from analyses of primary or secondary data, and (b) investigate relationships between 

magnet variables and nurse or patient outcomes. Nurse outcomes of interest were job 

satisfaction, burnout, and intention to leave16, 17 or similar variables such as mental health. Nurse 

perceptions of patient care quality has been a frequently used measure in the magnet-related 

survey research, and one study used nurse perceptions of safety climate as the dependent 

variable. But studies that included patient outcome variables measured from other sources were 

seldom found, although patient mortality and patient satisfaction are represented in the evidence 

tables. 

Limitations of the Research 

Overwhelmingly, the magnet research has been dominated by cross-sectional survey studies 

with convenience samples of organizations and staff nurse respondents. The basic approaches 

used to capture magnet environments in the research have been to include organizations from the 

1983 magnet study or with ANCC Magnet recognition in the hospital sample or to administer 

survey scales believed to measure magnet characteristics, traits, or factors. Usually, but not 

always, these approaches have been used in combination. Analyses have typically been limited 

to simple comparisons of survey items or subscale results between two groups. 

With few exceptions, the majority of this research has suffered from two major limitations: 

biased sampling at both the organizational and respondent level; and a scarcity of 

comprehensive, valid, and reliable measures for assessing the level of magnet characteristics 

present in any setting. Unless magnet characteristics are measured adequately across the 

organizations participating in a study, the degree to which their presence differs between the 

comparison groups cannot be assessed. Because the organizations that have attained ANCC 

Magnet recognition constitute a voluntary sample, it is possible that high levels of some or many 

magnet characteristics may also exist in other organizations that have not chosen to apply for the 

recognition. 

Overwhelmingly, the survey scales most frequently used to measure magnet characteristics 

have all derived from the Nursing Work Index (NWI). Because these scales have dominated the 

magnet research, it is important to understand how they are constituted and how they have 

evolved over time. The first version of the NWI was designed to inclusively and 

comprehensively reflect the findings of the 1983 magnet research study.18 It was intended to 

measure four variables: work values related to staff nurse job satisfaction, work values related to 

perceived productivity, staff nurse job satisfaction, and perceived productivity (the perception of 

4 
Magnet Recognition Program Impacts

an environment conducive to quality nursing care). Content validity for the instrument was 

assured by having three of the four original magnet researchers review it for inclusiveness.19 The 

NWI consisted of 65 items and asked respondents to make three Likert-scale judgments on each 

item. 

Aiken20 subsequently adapted the NWI to measure only organizational features by dropping 

the judgment statements related to job satisfaction and perceived productivity. Compared to the 

NWI, the NWI-Revised (NWI-R) contained fewer items, but otherwise remained the same 

except that one item was modified and two more were added. Four NWI-R subscales were 

conceptually derived from an item subset.21 

Two of the NWI-R subscale domains, nurse autonomy and nurse-physician relationships, are 

readily recognizable in comparison to the forces of magnetism listed in Table 1. The other two 

domains, organizational support and control over nursing practice, are represented by sets of 

items that could be classified across several forces of magnetism. Control over nursing practice 

is defined as organizational autonomy or the freedom to take the initiative in shaping unit and 

institutional policies for patient care. Hinshaw22 described clinical autonomy and organizational 

autonomy as interactive concepts. Both types of autonomy were evident in the findings from the 

original magnet study.8, 23

Since the NWI-R was developed nearly a decade before any subsequent NWI-derived scale 

versions appeared, the NWI-R has been the most frequently used measure of magnet 

characteristics in magnet research. An advantage of this fact has been the ability to compare 

findings across studies. A disadvantage may have been the formation of a wide impression that 

the magnet hospital concept is more circumscribed than it actually is. In the literature reviewed 

here, the phrase most frequently used to introduce the magnet concept to readers directly cites 

the NWI-R subscales; magnet is said to describe hospitals where nurses have greater autonomy, 

control over nursing practice, and good nurse-physician relationships. Given nursing’s history as 

a subordinated profession,24 one can understand that these three dimensions of the magnet 

concept attracted the most initial attention. 

In the last 5 years, three additional versions of the NWI have appeared. Except for minor 

changes in wording, all use items from the NWI or the NWI-R as originally written. However, 

each version consists of different, empirically derived scale or subscale formations. Lake25

created the 31-item Practice Environment Scale of the NWI (PES/NWI) with five subscales and 

an overarching composite scale. Estabrooks and colleagues26 created a single-factor, 26-item 

scale called the Practice Environment Index (PEI). Choi and colleagues27 created the Perceived 

Nursing Work Environment scale (PNWE)†

 with 42 items and 7 subscales. Neither the PEI nor 

the PNWE measures appear in the studies reviewed here. 

Research Evidence 

The evidence tables in this chapter are divided into three parts. Evidence Table 1 covers the 

early research period and itemizes studies conducted with hospitals from the group of 41 

reputational magnets that participated in the 1983 study. Evidence Table 2 includes studies that 

compared health care organizations with and without designation as ANCC-recognized Magnets. 

Finally, Evidence Table 3 itemizes studies that investigated the relationship of various magnet 

 

† Subscales for the PNWE are labeled professional practice, staffing and resource adequacy, nurse management, 

nursing process, nurse-physician collaboration, nurse competence, and positive scheduling climate.

5 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

characteristics to outcomes. Insofar as possible, the evidence tables are arranged in chronological 

order to illustrate how magnet research has progressed since the concept of a magnet 

environment first appeared in the literature in the 1980s. In addition, each row or panel in the 

tables represents a single data collection event. If multiple articles were generated from a single 

data collection effort, they are cited together in the same panel of the table. The purpose of this 

arrangement is to present a clearer picture of the body of evidence as a whole, revealing that the 

total number of data sources (with their associated measures and methods) that have constituted 

the magnet research since 1983 is relatively small. In addition, this arrangement draws attention 

to which articles are better read as a set by anyone wishing to understand the research in detail. 

Methodological information related to a single data collection effort can sometimes be scattered 

across multiple publications. 

Evidence Table 1 includes two of the most compelling studies to have come out of the 

magnet literature, those initiated by Aiken and her colleagues28-35 within a decade of the 

publication of the original magnet study. For the Medicare mortality study28, magnet 

characteristics were not directly measured. However, the use of risk adjustment techniques for 

predicted mortality and multivariate matched sampling methods to control for factors that might 

affect mortality provided strong support for concluding that the set of reputational magnet 

hospitals was uniquely different as a group. As Aiken has summarized it, these “findings suggest 

that the same factors that lead hospitals to be identified as effective from the standpoint of the 

organization of nursing care are associated with lower mortality”20 (p. 72). 

Guided by a conceptual framework originating in the sociology of organizations and 

professions,20 the second compelling study29-35 was formulated to examine how certain 

modifications to the organization of nursing in hospitals introduced by the AIDS epidemic 

affected patient and nurse outcomes. The AIDS epidemic in combination with high nurse 

vacancy rates caused a number of urban hospitals to grant “unusual discretion to nurses to 

redesign general medical units into dedicated AIDS units”20 (p. 63). Since the comparison group 

of hospitals for this study included two reputational magnet hospitals and a third hospital 

believed to be magnet-comparable, the researchers were able to discern that many of the same 

positive results achieved in dedicated AIDS units could apparently be attained by making 

changes at the organizational level. Magnet characteristics (as measured by the NWI-R 

subscales) were associated with significantly better outcomes for nurse safety, job burnout, 

patient satisfaction, and mortality 30 days from admission. 

The studies shown in Evidence Table 2 consistently display positive results relating magnet 

characteristics (as measured by the NWI-R or PES/NWI subscales) to nurse job satisfaction, 

burnout, intention to leave, and perceived quality of care. The exception to this finding is the 

mixed results shown for the nurse-physician relationship subscale. Havens’s36 study with chief 

nurse executives found higher levels on the NWI-R subscales to be associated with reports of 

higher patient care quality, less recruitment difficulty, and fewer patient/family complaints. The 

studies shown in the first two rows of Evidence Table 2, which demonstrated more favorable 

results for the ANCC Magnet group compared to the reputational magnet group, also supported 

the view expressed by McClure and Hinshaw that magnet status “is not a permanent institutional 

characteristic but rather one that requires constant nurturing”14 (p. 119).

Evidence Table 3 lists three studies that explored the degree to which magnet characteristics 

could be found in hospitals outside the United States or in nonhospital settings. Thomas-Hawkins 

and colleagues37 and Smith, Tallman, and Kelly38 found that some magnet characteristics linked 

significantly to intentions to leave in freestanding dialysis units and to job satisfaction in rural 

6 
Magnet Recognition Program Impacts

Canadian hospitals, respectively. Rondeau and Wagar39 found significant associations between 

magnet characteristics and resident satisfaction and nurse satisfaction, turnover, and vacancy 

rates in long-term care organizations in western Canada. 

The remaining studies shown in Evidence Table 3 are important for a number of reasons. 

Using multiple measures, a variety of samples and respondent groups, and more powerful 

analyses, Laschinger and her colleagues40-44 have been testing a theoretical model linking 

structural empowerment and magnet characteristics (as measured by the NWI-R or PES/NWI) to 

nurse and patient outcomes with variables such as trust and burnout posited as mediators. The 

empowerment dimensions being measured—perceptions of formal and informal power and 

access to opportunity, information, support, and resources—also appear to overlay some 

descriptions of magnet characteristics from the original 1983 research. By testing relationships 

with a set of theoretically selected variables and multivariate statistical methods, the studies of 

Laschinger and colleagues have been progressively building knowledge about how factors in the 

complex nursing practice environment interact with each other to affect outcomes. 

The work that will be required to explicate how the organization and delivery of nursing 

services functions as a mechanism to improve patient safety and the quality of care has only just 

begun. The literature review conducted by Lundstrom and colleagues45 found a number of 

studies that start to suggest the mechanisms by which organizational and work environment 

factors influence worker performance and ultimately patient outcomes. However, the authors 

also noted, “What we do know about changes in organization and structure of hospitals and the 

potential for those changes to affect patient outcomes pales by comparison to what we do not 

know”45 (p. 103). 

Reviewing the magnet research presented in this chapter leads to similar conclusions. The 

evidence almost uniformly shows consistent positive relations between job satisfaction or nurseassessed quality of care and the magnet characteristics measured by subscales of the NWI-R or 

PES/NWI. But the connections from those results based on staff nurse surveys to patient 

outcomes measured objectively by other means have seldom been studied. 

In a recent systematic review of the hospital nursing environment’s effect on patient 

mortality, Kazanjian and colleagues6 found associations between unfavorable environment 

attributes and higher patient mortality rates in 19 of 27 studies. However, other studies of the 

same attributes showed contrary or neutral results. Too much variability existed in measures, 

settings, and methodological rigor across studies to permit any pooling of results. The authors 

concluded it would be difficult to determine “how to design optimal practice settings until 

mechanisms linking practice environment to outcomes are better understood”6 (p. 111).

Evidence-Based Practice Implications 

The magnet framework outlined in Table 1 specifies a set of factors important for 

establishing positive work environments that support professional nursing practice. As the 

evidence reviewed in this chapter shows, few studies have explored the relationship of magnet 

characteristics to patient outcomes. Since the associations found were consistently positive, this 

constitutes a promising body of work, but one that is just beginning to emerge. In contrast, more 

evidence has accumulated to demonstrate links between magnet characteristics or Magnet 

recognition and favorable outcomes for nurses such as lower burnout, higher satisfaction, and 

fewer reports of intentions to leave. The practice implications suggested by these findings have 

been delineated in detail by the Institute of Medicine’s 2004 report on patient safety, which 

7 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

included a comprehensive review of the research that clarifies how nurse outcomes reflect and 

interact with working conditions to affect patient safety and quality.3 

Keeping Patients Safe: Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses cited conditions in the 

work environments of nurses as “the primary sources” of threats to patient safety that “must be 

addressed if patient safety is to be improved”3 (p. 47). The report presented a series of 

recommendations for improving leadership, management, and organizational support practices 

that emphasizes the increased participation of employees in work design, problem-solving, and 

organizational decisionmaking as a “key ingredient to successful organizational 

change”3 (p. 260). The report noted that high involvement in decisionmaking for nurses “has 

been studied under a number of constructs, including shared governance, nursing empowerment, 

control over nursing practice, and clinical autonomy”3 (p. 122). 

In keeping with the realization that threats to patient safety result from complex causes,2

Keeping Patients Safe identified a multifactor approach to creating favorable work environments 

for nurses. Many of the strategies and goals described in the report correspond to the descriptions 

of magnet environments initially provided by McClure and colleagues8 and currently elaborated 

for contemporary settings in the appraisal criteria for Magnet recognition.11 For example, of the 

27 goals the report listed as “Necessary Patient Safeguards in the Work Environment of 

Nurses”3 (p. 16–17), 20 are addressed by the current evidence requirements for Magnet 

recognition.11 The multidimensionality of the magnet framework reflects the highly complex, 

variable, multilevel, and multifaceted nature of nursing practice environments, but it also poses 

measurement challenges for researchers interested in studying the influence of magnet 

environments on outcomes. 

Research Implications 

Mick and Mark5 have argued that while nursing research has contributed substantially to the 

knowledge about how internal structures and work processes relate to patient safety and quality 

outcomes in health care organizations, there is a compelling need to improve the methodological 

sophistication of the research and to expand the theoretical frameworks that guide it. Many of the 

suggestions they make for doing so are echoed in the research implications generated by this 

review. Greater attention needs to be paid to addressing sampling bias issues, improving critical 

measures, collecting objective data from sources other than nurse self-reports, and designing 

multilevel and longitudinal studies. As Table 1 reveals, the conceptual definition of a magnet 

environment encompasses many fields and disciplines from which theoretical insights may be 

borrowed and tested. 

Taking better account of multiple organizational perspectives and hierarchical levels in the 

research will build knowledge about how the relationships between magnet characteristics and 

patient outcomes differ by role or practice location. For example, Laschinger, Almost, and TuerHodes41 found that magnet characteristics and empowerment related differently to each other and 

to job satisfaction for nurse practitioners than for staff nurses, and Friese’s46 results differed 

significantly on some magnet characteristics only for oncology nurses. Distinguishing unit 

locations may be particularly important. Mick and Mark have claimed that “it is the exploration 

of work structures and processes at the nursing unit level that is contributing to the lion’s share 

of advancing knowledge about what does and does not have an impact on patient and 

organizational outcomes”5 (p. 319). 

8 
Magnet Recognition Program Impacts

Finally, while the NWI-R and later versions of the NWI have yielded a wealth of useful data, 

questions have also been raised as to the measurement adequacy of at least three of them.47

Variable, unpredictable, contextually sensitive, and multifaceted,25, 47 “the nursing practice 

environment is a complex construct to conceptualize and measure”25 (p. 177). Yet developing, 

improving, and refining measures to reliably capture all of the factors of a magnet environment 

may be the most important next step. 

Conclusion 

The magnet concept defines a framework for facilitating the professional practice of nursing 

that has demonstrated effectiveness in attracting nurses and shows promise for contributing to 

optimal patient outcomes. There is a compelling need to improve the measures and methods used 

to research magnet characteristics and environments before the links that connect organizational 

context to nurse and patient outcomes can be sufficiently understood. 

Search Strategy 

A series of searches was carried out in October 2006 using the National Library of 

Medicine’s PubMed database and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature 

(CINAHL) database. Several search terms and phrases including the word “magnet” or 

“magnetism” were tested in both cases. The most effective were “magnet[Title/abstract] and 

nursing[Title/abstract]” in PubMed and “magnet” in [TI Title] OR “magnet” in [AB Abstract or 

Author-Supplied Abstract] with advanced search in CINAHL. Supplementary backup searches 

were also performed substituting the word “magnetism” for “magnet” in CINAHL and the word 

“hospitals” for “nursing” in PubMed. The PubMed searches yielded 134 unique titles to review. 

Cross-checking the CINAHL results against the PubMed lists yielded two additional titles. 

The overwhelming majority of articles identified by these searches fell into editorial, 

interpretive, or narrative categories—especially narratives describing how an individual 

organization prepared for or achieved ANCC Magnet recognition. If an abstract was ambiguous 

about whether the article reported results from a primary or secondary data analysis, the article 

itself was retrieved in order to make a determination. The article by Laschinger and Leiter44 was 

previously known and not identified by the search strategy. 

Author Affiliations 

Vicki A. Lundmark, Ph.D., director, research, American Nurses Credentialing Center. Email: Vicki.lundmark@ana.org. 

9 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

References 

1. Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer 

health system. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press; 2000. 

2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. 

3. Institute of Medicine. Keeping patients safe: 

transforming the work environment of nurses. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004. 

4. Aiken LH. Improving quality through nursing. In: 

Mechanic D, Rogut LB, Colby DC, et al., eds. Policy 

challenges in modern health care. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2005. p. 177-88. 

5. Mick SS, Mark BA. The contribution of organization 

theory to nursing health services research. Nurs 

Outlook 2005 Nov-Dec; 53:317-23. 

6. Kazanjian A, Green C, Wong J, et al. Effect of the 

hospital nursing environment on patient mortality: a 

systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005 

Apr;10:111-7. 

7. White P, McGillis Hall L. Patient safety outcomes. In: 

Doran DM, eds. Nursing-sensitive outcomes: state of 

the science. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett 

Publishers; 2003. p. 211-42. 

8. McClure ML, Poulin MA, Sovie MD, et al. Magnet 

hospitals: attraction and retention of professional 

nurses. Kansas City, MO: American Nurses’ 

Association; 1983. 

9. McClure ML, Poulin MA, Sovie MD, et al. Magnet 

hospitals: attraction and retention of professional 

nurses (the original study). In: McClure ML, Hinshaw 

AS, eds. Magnet hospitals revisited: attraction and 

retention of professional nurses. Washington, DC: 

American Nurses Publishing; 2002: p. 1-24. 

10. Shortell SM, Kaluzny AD. Health care management: 

organization design and behavior. 5th ed. Clifton Park, 

NY: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2006. 

11. American Nurses Credentialing Center. Magnet 

Recognition Program: Application Manual 2005. 

Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Credentialing 

Center; 2004. 

12. McClure ML. Magnet hospitals: insights and issues. 

Nurs Adm Q 2005 Jul-Sep;29(3):198-201. 

13. Lundmark VA, Hickey JV. The Magnet recognition 

program: understanding the appraisal process. J Nurs 

Care Qual 2006 Oct-Dec; 21:290-4. 

14. McClure ML, Hinshaw AS. The future of magnet 

hospital. In: McClure ML, Hinshaw AS, eds. Magnet 

hospitals revisited: attraction and retention of 

professional nurses. Washington, DC: American 

Nurses Publishing; 2002. p. 117-127. 

15. American Nurses Association (ANA). Scope and 

standards for nurse administrators. 2nd ed. 

Washington, DC: Nursesbooks.org; 2004. 

16. Mark BA, Salyer J, Wan TT. Professional nursing 

practice: impact on organizational and patient 

outcomes. J Nurs Adm 2003 Apr; 33:224-34. 

17. Stone P, Pastor DK, Harrison MI. Organizational 

climate: implications for the home healthcare 

workforce. J Healthc Qual 2006 Jan-Feb; 28:4-11. 

18. Kramer M, Schmalenberg CE. Best quality patient 

care: a historical perspective on Magnet hospitals. 

Nurs Adm Q 2005 Jul-Sep;29:275-87 

19. Kramer M, Hafner LP. Shared values: impact on staff 

nurse job satisfaction and perceived productivity. Nurs 

Res 1989;38(3):172-7. 

20. Aiken LH. Superior outcomes for magnet hospitals: 

the evidence base. In: McClure ML, Hinshaw AS, eds. 

Magnet hospitals revisited. Washington, DC: 

American Nurses Publishing; 2002. p. 61-81. 

21. Aiken LH, Patrician PA. Measuring organizational 

traits of hospitals: the Revised Nursing Work Index. 

Nurs Res 2000 May-Jun;49:146-53. 

22. Hinshaw AS. Building magnetism into health 

organizations. In: McClure ML, Hinshaw AS, eds. 

Magnet hospitals revisited: attraction and retention of 

professional nurses. Washington, DC: American 

Nurses Publishing; 2002. p. 83-102. 

23. Scott JG, Sochalski J, Aiken L. Review of magnet 

hospital research: findings and implications for 

professional nursing practice. J Nurs Adm 1999 Jan; 

29:9-19. 

24. Abbott A. The system of professions: an essay on the 

division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: The University 

of Chicago Press; 1988. 

10 
Magnet Recognition Program Impacts

25. Lake ET. Development of the practice environment 

scale of the Nursing Work Index. Res Nurs Health 

2002 Jun; 25:176-88. 

26. Estabrooks CA, Tourangeau AE, Humphrey CK, et al. 

Measuring the hospital practice environment: a 

Canadian context. Res Nurs Health 2002 Aug; 25:256-

68. 

27. Choi J, Bakken S, Larson E, et al. Perceived nursing 

work environment of critical care nurses. Nurs Res 

2004 Nov-Dec;53:370-8. 

28. Aiken LH, Smith HL, Lake ET. Lower Medicare 

mortality among a set of hospitals known for good 

nursing care. Med Care 1994 Aug; 32:771-87. 

29. Aiken LH, Sloane DM. Effects of organizational 

innovations in AIDS care on burnout among urban 

hospital nurses. Work Occup 1997; 24:453-77. 

30. Aiken LH, Sloane DM. Effects of specialization and 

client differentiation on the status of nurses: the case 

of AIDS. J Health Soc Behav 1997;38:203-22. 

31. Aiken LH, Sochalski J, Lake ET. Studying outcomes 

of organizational change in health services. Med Care

1997; 35(suppl):NS6-N18. 

32. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Lake ET. Satisfaction with 

inpatient AIDS care: a national comparison of 

dedicated and scattered-bed units. Med Care 

1997;35:948-62. 

33. Aiken LH, Lake ET, Sochalski J, et al. Design of an 

outcomes study of the organization of hospital AIDS 

care. Res Sociol Health Care 1997;14:3-26. 

34. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Klocinski JL. Hospital nurses’ 

occupational exposure to blood: prospective, 

retrospective, and institutional reports. Am J Public 

Health 1997;87(1):103-107. 

35. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Lake ET, et al. Organization 

and outcomes of inpatient AIDS care. Med Care

1999;37:760-72. 

36. Havens, DS. Comparing nursing infrastructure and 

outcomes: ANCC Magnet and nonmagnet CNE’s 

report. Nurs Econ, 2001;19:258-66. 

37. Thomas-Hawkins C, Denno M, Currier H, et al. Staff 

nurses’ perceptions of the work environment in 

freestanding hemodialysis facilities. Nephrol Nurs J 

2003 Aug: 30(4):377-86. [Previously published 

Apr:30(2):169-78.] 

38. Smith H, Tallman R, Kelly K. Magnet hospital 

characteristics and northern Canadian nurses’ job 

satisfaction. Can J Nurs Leadersh 2006 Sep;19(3):73-

86. 

39. Rondeau KV, Wagar TH. Nurse and resident 

satisfaction in magnet long-term care organizations: 

do high involvement approaches matter? J Nurs 

Manag 2006 Apr; 14:244-50. 

40. Laschinger HK, Shamian J, Thomson D. Impact of 

Magnet hospital characteristics on nurses’ perceptions 

of trust, burnout, quality of care, and work 

satisfaction. Nurs Econ 2001:19:209-19. 

41. Laschinger HK, Almost J, Tuer-Hodes D. Workplace 

empowerment and magnet hospital characteristics: 

making the link. J Nurs Adm 2003 Jul-Aug; 33(7-

8):410-22. 

42. Tigert JA, Laschinger HK. Critical care nurses’ 

perceptions of workplace empowerment, magnet 

hospital traits and mental health. Dynamics 2004 

Winter;15(4):19-23. 

43. Armstrong KJ, Laschinger H. Structural 

empowerment, Magnet hospital characteristics, and 

patient safety culture: making the link. J Nurs Care 

Qual 2006 Apr-Jun; 21(2):124-32. 

44. Laschinger HK, Leiter MP. The impact of nursing 

work environments on patient safety outcomes: the 

mediating role of burnout/engagement. J Nurs Adm. 

2006 May;36:259-67. 

45. Lundstrom T, Pugliese G, Bartley J, et al. 

Organizational and environmental factors that affect 

worker health and safety and patient outcomes. Am J 

Infect Control 2002 Apr; 30(2):93-106. 

46. Friese CR. Nurse practice environments and 

outcomes: implications for oncology nursing. Oncol 

Nurs Forum 2005 Jul 1; 32:765-72. 

47. Cummings GG, Hayduk L, Estabrooks CA. Is the 

Nursing Work Index measuring up? Moving beyond 

estimating reliability to testing validity. Nurs Res 2006 

Mar-Apr; 55(2):82-93. 

48. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Magnet hospitals talk 

about the impact of DRGs on nursing care—Part I. 

Nurs Manage 1987 Sep;18(9):38-42. 

49. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Magnet hospitals talk 

about the impact of DRGs on nursing care—Part II. 

Nurs Manage 1987 Oct; 18(10):33-6, 38-40. 

50. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Magnet hospitals: Part I. 

Institutions of excellence. J Nurs Adm 1988 

Jan;18(1):13-24. 

11 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

51. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Magnet hospitals: Part II. 

Institutions of excellence. J Nurs Adm 1988 

Feb;18(2):11-9. 

56. Aiken LH, Havens DS, Sloane DM. The Magnet 

nursing services recognition program. Am J Nurs 2000 

Mar;100(3):26-35; quiz 35-6. 

52. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C, Hafner LP. What causes 

job satisfaction and productivity of quality nursing 

care? In: Moore TF, Simendinger EA, eds. Managing 

the nursing shortage: a guide to recruitment and 

retention. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1989. p. 12-32. 

57. Upenieks VV. The interrelationship of organizational 

characteristics of magnet hospitals, nursing leadership, 

and nursing job satisfaction. Health Care Manag 

(Frederick) 2003 Apr-Jun;22(2):83-98. 

58. Upenieks VV. Assessing differences in job 

satisfaction of nurses in magnet and nonmagnet 

hospitals. J Nurs Adm 2002 Nov; 32:564-76. 

53. Peters TJ, Waterman RH. In search of excellence. 

New York: Harper Row Publishers; 1982. 

54. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Job satisfaction and 

retention. Insights for the ‘90s. Part 1. Nursing 1991 

Mar; 21(3):50-5. 

59. Brady-Schwartz DC. Further evidence on the Magnet 

Recognition program: implications for nursing leaders. 

J Nurs Adm 2005 Sep; 35:397-403. 

55. Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Job satisfaction and 

retention. Insights for the ‘90s. Part 2. Nursing 1991 

Apr; 21(4):51-5. 

12 
Evidence Table 1.‡ Studies With Reputational Magnet Hospitals

Source 

Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice 

Design Type 

Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) 

Study Setting & Study Population 

Key Fin

Kramer and Hafner 198919 Kramer and Schmalenberg 198748-51 Kramer, Schmalenberg, and Hafner 198852

Nursing Work Index (NWI), 65 items designed to measure work values representing the findings from the 1983 original magnet study Other measures: 

• culture of excellence, 8 

items suggested by Peters and Waterman53

• locus of control • autonomy-patient advocacy • self-concept/self-esteem • role behavior scales 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey, interviews, observations, document review Outcomes: from NWI: 

• job satisfaction • perceived 

productivity of quality patient care 

1985–86 data collection 16 reputational magnets proportionate by region, 8 comparison county, community, and medical center hospitals in Virginia Survey n = 2,236 staff nurses, 1,634 in reputational magnet and 702 in comparison group; interview n = 800+ staff nurses, 632 nurse managers/executives 

Staff nuhad sign

• job s• perce

quali

Causal outcomeproduce

Kramer and Schmalenberg 199154, 55

Magnet factors: 

• perceived adequacy of 

staffing 

• image of nurses • how nursing is valued (how 

important, how active, how powerful) 

Other measures: 

• culture of excellence, 39 

items to represent 7 attributes 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey Outcome: Overall job satisfaction: 

• organizational 

structure (7 items) 

• professional 

practice (5 items) 

• management style 

(5 items) 

• quality of leadership 

(4 items) 

• professional 

development (3 items) 

1989–90 data collection Survey n = 939 nurses in 14 reputational magnets (from 1985–86 sample), 808 nurses in comparison “panel” sampled from 5,000 Nursing89 subscribers 

Nurses significaon 

• job s

Nurses reported 

• a cul

• perce

staffi

• imag

• value 

13

‡ To illustrate how this research has developed and expanded over time, the evidence tables in this chapter are arranged in chronologica

collection date for each study, when available, or publication date. 
14

Source Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice Design Type Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) Study Setting & Study Population Key FinAiken, Smith, and Lake 199428 Status as a reputational magnet hospital Cross- sectional studies Cross-sectional; multivariate matched sampling procedure to control for relevant hospital characteristics (e.g., teaching status, technology availability, board certification of physicians, emergency room presence), adjusting for differences in predicted mortality for Medicare patients Outcome: Medicare mortality rate (within 30 days of admission) 1988 Medicare data 39 reputational magnet hospitals (census of all available or eligible), 195 control hospitals (5 matches for each magnet) from all nonmagnet U.S. hospitals with >100 Medicare discharges Magnet 

lower m(confidefewer dedischarg

Aiken and Sloane 199729, 30 Aiken, Sochalski, and Lake 199731 Aiken, Sloane and Lake 199732 Aiken, Lake, Sochalski 199733 Aiken, Sloane, and Klocinski 199734 Aiken, Sloane, Lake 199935

Nursing Work Index-Revised (NWI-R), 57 items, with subscales for 

• nurse autonomy (5 items) • control over nursing practice 

setting (7 items) 

• nurse relations with 

physicians (2 items) 

• organizational support (10 

items from previous 3 subscales) 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey, needlestick reports for a 30-day period, patient interviews, patient chart abstraction Outcomes: Nurse — 

• job burnout • safety (needlesticks)

Patient — 

• satisfaction with 

care (multi-item scale and a single-item overall rating)

• mortality 30 days 

from admission 

1991 data collection 40 medical units, 2 in each of 20 urban hospitals located throughout U.S., 10 hospitals with dedicated AIDS units, 10 matched comparable hospitals without AIDS units (scattered-bed), 2 comparison hospitals were reputational magnets, 1 more was considered magnet based on researcher knowledge of facility Survey n = 820 RNs from all employed on units ≥16 hours per week (86% response rate); interview n = 594 patients; chart outcomes for 1,205 AIDS patients 

Patients scattereodds of setting; ratios wmajor exPatient sin magnnursing determinimportanNurses sustaineneedlesNurses dedicatesignificafor emotautonomresourcerelations
Source 

Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice 

Design Type 

Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) 

Study Setting & Study Population 

Key Fin

Scott, Sochalski, and Aiken 199923

Literature 

review, narrative 

Search method unstated. 

Summatable anfrom themagnet leadershprofessifound whospital

15
Evidence Table 2. Studies Comparing Health Care Organizations With and Without ANCC Magnet Recognition

Source Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice Design Type Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) Study Setting & Study Population Key FinAiken, Havens, and Sloane 200056 Friese 200546 NWI-R single items and subscales, Aiken et al.: • nurses’ autonomy • nurses’ control over the practice setting • nurse relations with physicians Practice Environment Scale/Nursing Work Index (PES/NWI), Friese: • nurse participation in hospital affairs (9 items) • nursing foundations for quality of care (10 items) • nurse manager ability, leadership, and support of nurses (5 items) • staffing and resource adequacy (4 items) • collegial nurse-physician relations (3 items) Other measures: • job characteristics (hours worked, workload, supervisory responsibilities, 

nonnursing duties) 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional, comparative multisite observational Outcomes: 

• perceived quality of 

care 

• job satisfaction • intent to leave • burnout (Maslach 

Burnout 

 Inventory) 

1998 data collection 7 ANCC Magnets (census as of study date), 13 reputational magnets (12 from Kramer et al.’s 1985–86 sample) with 2 additional teaching hospitals included in Friese’s secondary analysis Aiken et al. survey n = 2,045 RNs in medical or surgical units, 1,064 in ANCC Magnet and 981 in reputational magnet group Friese analysis n = 1,956 of which 305 = oncology nurses (155 in ANCC Magnet and 150 in comparison group) and 1,651 = nononcology nurses (755 in ANCC Magnet and 896 in comparison group) 

Nurses significa

• highe• highe• less f

out, efrustr

OncologMagnets exhaustnurses imagnets hospitalsIn both arelated ssignificathe ANCexceptionurse-phnurse mleadershsignificaMagnets nurses. 

Havens 200136 NWI-R subscale: 

• organizational support 

Other measures: 

• degree restructuring 

implemented, 9 items 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey; comparative Outcomes: 

• difficulty recruiting 

staff RNs (1 item) 

• quality of patient 

care (global ratings and reports of complaints)

1999–2000 data collection 21 ANCC Magnets, 35 reputational magnet hospitals (census samples of both groups) Survey n = 43 chief nurse executives, 19 in ANCC Magnet and 24 in reputational magnet group 

Chief nuANCC Mless diffiwere sigreport 

• high • fewe

comp

• organ

autonpractcolla

16
17

Source 

Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice 

Design Type 

Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) 

Study Setting & Study Population 

Key Fin

Upenieks 2002, 200357, 58 Power and empowerment – Conditions of Work 

Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (CWEQ-II) 20 items: 

• 2 global items • 4 subscales to measure 

perceived access to opportunity, information, support, and resources 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey Outcome: Job satisfaction -

NWI-R subscales: 

• autonomy • nurse control over 

practice setting 

• relations between 

nurses and physicians 

Plus 3 researcherdesigned subscales: 

• self-governance (7 

items) 

• organizational 

structure (6 items) 

• education 

opportunities (6 items) 

Convenience sample of 2 ANCC Magnets, 2 comparable comparison hospitals Survey n = 305 medicalsurgical nurses 

Nurses group hascores o

• job s• powe

Brady-Schwartz 200559 Status as ANCC-recognized Magnet Cross- sectional 

studies 

Cross-sectional survey; quantitative, descriptive correlational Outcome: 

• overall job 

satisfaction (total McCloskey Mueller Satisfaction Scale score; subscales: extrinsic rewards, scheduling, family/ work balance, coworkers, interaction, professional opportunities, praise and recognition, control/ responsibility) 

• intention to leave 

(Anticipated Turnover Scale) 

3 ANCC Magnets, 3 comparison hospitals Survey n = 470 RNs, 173 in ANCC Magnet and 297 in comparison group 

Nurses had signjob satissignificafor profecontrol/rextrinsic Higher ocorrelateperceptiremainin
Evidence Table 3. Studies of Magnet Characteristics

Source Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice Design Type Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) Study Setting & Study Population Key FinLaschinger, Shamian, and Thomson 200140 Magnet characteristics— NWI-R subscales: • nurse autonomy • nurse control over practice setting • nurses’ relations with physicians Other measures: • trust and confidence in management — Interpersonal Trust at Work Scale • burnout—The Human Services Survey, 3 components (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, decreased personal accomplishments) Cross- sectional studies Cross-sectional survey Outcomes: • job satisfaction • perceived quality of care • perceived quality of unit Ontario, Canada Survey n = 3,016 staff nurses from medical-surgical settings (subsample from a stratified random sample) in 135 hospitals Model te

variablethe variasatisfactquality a

Magnet 

influenceperceptitrust in memotionimportanHigher lecharactewith highmanageburnout

Thomas- Hawkins, Denno, Currier 200337 Magnet characteristics – PES/NWI subscales (some items adapted to reflect setting): • nurse participation in hospital affairs 

• nursing foundations for 

quality of care 

• nurse manager ability, 

leadership, and support of nurses 

• staffing and resource 

adequacy 

• collegial nurse-physician 

relations 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey Outcome: intentions to leave job in next year (1 item) 

United States 1,000 staff nurses working in freestanding hemodialysis facilities (random sample from American Nephrology Nurses’ Association members) 

Nurses wtheir joblower levcharacteof the Pexcept fbetween 

18
19

Source 

Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice 

Design Type 

Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) 

Study Setting & Study Population 

Key Fin

Laschinger, Almost, and Tuer-Hodes 200341

Magnet characteristics

—NWI-R 

subscales: 

• nurse autonomy • nurse control over practice 

setting 

• nurses’ relations with 

physicians 

Other measures: Empowerment 

• CWEQ-II, 4 subscales: 

access to opportunity, information, support, and resources 

• Job Activities Scale-II, 3 

items: perceptions of formal power 

• Organizational 

Relationships Scale-II, 4 items: perceptions of informal power 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey data from 3 independent studies; predictive, nonexperimental Outcomes: 

• Global Job 

Satisfaction Questionnaire (Studies 1, 3) 

• Nurse Job 

Satisfaction Questionnaire (Study 2) 

Ontario, Canada Study 1: survey n = 233 randomly selected staff nurses from urban tertiary care hospitals throughout Ontario Study 2: survey n = 263 randomly selected staff nurses from 3 rural community hospitals in a western Ontario network of 8 Study 3: survey n = 55 acute care nurse practitioners from urban tertiary care hospitals throughout Ontario 

For staff and magsignificapredictonurse prcombinaand magsignificasatisfactAverage empowecharactestaff nurpractitioTotal scand magstrongly samplesrelated ewere acstaff nurinformatpractitioAll emporelated sperceptito resoustrongly environmrelated mphysicia
20

Source Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice Design Type Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) Study Setting & Study Population Key FinTigert and Laschinger 200442 Magnet characteristics – NWI- R subscales: 

• nurse autonomy • nurse control over practice 

setting 

• nurses’ relations with 

physicians 

Other measures: Empowerment 

• CWEQ-II, 4 subscales: 

access to opportunity, information, support, and resources 

• Job Activities Scale-II, 3 

items: perceptions of formal power 

• Organizational 

Relationships Scale-II, 4 items: perceptions of informal power 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional, correlational survey design Outcomes: mental health 

• State of Mind 

subscale (5 items) from the Pressure Management Indicator 

• Emotional 

Exhaustion subscale (6 items) from the Maslach Burnout Inventory 

Ontario, Canada; Data collected 2001 Survey n = 75 critical care nurses, a subsample of 239 nurses working in teaching hospitals (randomly selected from College of Nurses of Ontario) 

The comempowecharactethe variaof the vaEmpowesignificapercepticharacteempoweindepenemotionmagnet significamind. 

Rondeau and Wagar 200639 Magnet similarity represented by employer-of-choice strength 

(7 items, e.g., how establishment views, values, treats its nursing personnel; how staff and community view its treatment of nurses) Other magnet characteristics measures: 

• high involvement (high 

commitment) work practices (10 items) 

• progressive, participatory 

decisionmaking workplace culture (3 items) 

• training support (10 items) 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey Outcomes: 

• resident satisfaction 

(3 items) 

• nurse turnover and 

vacancy rates 

• nurse satisfaction (3 

items) 

Canada Data collected 2003 Survey n = 114 nurse executives sampled from all long-term care organizations (nursing homes) in western Canada with ≥35 beds 

Higher semployesignifica

• highe• lowe

rates 

• highe• high 

pract

• progr• nurse 

and a
21

Source 

Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice 

Design Type 

Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) 

Study Setting & Study Population 

Key Fin

Smith, Tallman, and Kelly 200638

Magnet characteristics categories: 

• supportive management (5 

items) 

• professional autonomy and 

responsibility (4 items) 

• nurse-physician working 

relationship (2 items) 

• nurse-manager working 

relationship (2 items) 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey, interviews Outcome: job satisfaction (3 items from Job Diagnostic Survey) 

Canada Survey n = 123 nurses in diverse clinical areas from 13 rural northwestern hospitals recruited via circulating letter/flyer 

All magnwere sigcorrelateexcept fnurse-ph1 of the 

Armstrong and Laschinger 200643

Magnet characteristics – PES-NWI subscales: 

• nurse participation in 

hospital affairs 

• nursing foundations for 

quality of care 

• nurse manager ability, 

leadership, and support of nurses 

• staffing and resource 

adequacy 

• collegial nurse-physician 

relations 

Other measures: Structural empowerment – CWEQ-II, 2 global items and 6 components: access to opportunity, information, support, resources, formal power, and informal power 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey; exploratory; predictive, nonexperimental Outcome measure: 

Safety Climate Survey 

Canada 40 staff nurses working in a small community hospital in central Canada 

The comempowecharactepredictosafety cOverall esignificaall magntotal emrelated tof care aleadersh
22

Source Environment Issue/Attribute Related to Clinical Practice Design Type Study Design & Study Outcome Measure(s) Study Setting & Study Population Key FinLaschinger and Leiter 200644 Magnet characteristics – PES-NWI subscales: 

• nurse participation in 

hospital affairs 

• nursing foundations for 

quality of care 

• nurse manager ability, 

leadership, and support of nurses 

• staffing and resource 

adequacy 

• collegial nurse-physician 

relations 

Other measures: Maslach Burnout Inventory

–Human 

Service Scale, 3 subscales:

• emotional exhaustion (9 

items) 

• depersonalization (5 items) • personal accomplishment (8 

items) 

Crosssectional studies 

Cross-sectional survey Outcome measure: adverse events (nurse-reported frequency of occurrence of negative patient events in past year: 

• falls • nosocomial 

infections 

• medication errors • patient complaints) 

Canada Survey n = 8,597 nurses (4,606 from a stratified random sample of licensing registry lists in Ontario and 3,991 from a census sample of acute care nurses in Alberta), a subset of participants in the International Survey of Hospital Staffing and Organization of Patient Outcomes conducted in 5 countries 

With all included equation showed of all enpatient smediateBoth staof a nursdirectly aoutcomeStaffing affected and use directly aaccompNursing fundamepolicy inadequacand supmedical