Magnet Hospitals Research Articles

Nurse outcomes in Magnet® and non-Magnet hospitals.

The important goals of Magnet® hospitals are to create supportive professional nursing care environments. A recently published paper found little difference in work environments between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether work environments, staffing, and nurse outcomes differ between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. A secondary analysis of data from a 4-state survey of 26,276 nurses in 567 acute care hospitals to evaluate differences in work environments and nurse outcomes in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals was conducted. Magnet hospitals had significantly better work environments (t = -5.29, P < .001) and more highly educated nurses (t = -2.27, P < .001). Magnet hospital nurses were 18% less likely to be dissatisfied with their job (P < .05) and 13% less likely to report high burnout (P < .05). Magnet hospitals have significantly better work environments than non-Magnet hospitals. The better work environments of Magnet hospitals are associated with lower levels of nurse job dissatisfaction and burnout.

Adoption of National Quality Forum Safe Practices by Magnet® Hospitals

Magnet® hospitals (MHs) are known for their high retention rates of nurses and positive work environment, yet little is known about whether MHs also have higher levels of safe practice adoption rates compared with non-Magnet hospitals (NMHs). In this study, we investigate adoption of National Quality Forum (NQF) Safe Practices in 34 regions during 2004 to 2006 that were part of the Leapfrog Group initiative to improve quality of hospital care. We conducted a secondary data analysis by combining multiple data sets from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey,Healthcare Cost Reports Information System, and Leapfrog Group Annual Hospital Survey. A composite safe practice score (CSPS) was constructed from the Leapfrog annual survey and ranged from 0 (no adoption) to 1,000 (complete adoption) of the 30 NQF Safe Practices. A descriptive analysis and a regression with Heckman correction to control for selection bias were used to determine the effect of Magnet status and other hospital and market characteristics on differences in CSPS over the 3-year period. There were 140 MHs and 1,320 NMHs reporting data for the CSPS. In 2004, MHs had a mean CSPS of 865 versus 774 for NMHs (P < .001). By 2006, NMHs improved their CSPS from 774 to 872 (98 points), whereas MHs improved their CSPS from 865 to 925 (60 points, P < .001). Regression analysis showed a positive and significant effect of Magnet status of hospitals on the adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices as measured by the CSPS. Our results also indicated that smaller hospitals (in bed size), hospitals with larger share of Medicare patients, higher nurse intensity levels (mean hours of nursing care per day), and higher levels of competition among hospitals in Leapfrog rollout regions were associated with higher CSPS. Magnet hospitals in the urban areas of 34 Leapfrog rollout regions were more likely to have higher adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices in comparison to NMHs in the same demographic areas during the time frame of the study, but other hospitals nearly closed the gap by 2006.

Quality and strength of patient safety climate on medical—surgical units

Describing the safety climate in hospitals is an important first step in creating work environments where safety is a priority. Yet, little is known about the patient safety climate on medical-surgical units. Study purposes were to describe quality and strength of the patient safety climate on medical-surgical units and explore hospital and unit characteristics associated with this climate. Data came from a larger organizational study to investigate hospital and unit characteristics associated with organizational, nurse, and patient outcomes. The sample for this study was 3,689 RNs on 286 medical-surgical units in 146 hospitals. Nursing workgroup and managerial commitment to safety were the two most strongly positive attributes of the patient safety climate. However, issues surrounding the balance between job duties and safety compliance and nurses' reluctance to reveal errors continue to be problematic. Nurses in Magnet hospitals were more likely to communicate about errors and participate in error-related problem solving. Nurses on smaller units and units with lower work complexity reported greater safety compliance and were more likely to communicate about and reveal errors. Nurses on smaller units also reported greater commitment to patient safety and participation in error-related problem solving. Nursing workgroup commitment to safety is a valuable resource that can be leveraged to promote a sense of personal responsibility for and shared ownership of patient safety. Managers can capitalize on this commitment by promoting a work environment in which control over nursing practice and active participation in unit decisions are encouraged and by developing channels of communication that increase staff nurse involvement in identifying patient safety issues, prioritizing unit-level safety goals, and resolving day-to-day operational problems the have the potential to jeopardize patient safety.

Work environment factors other than staffing associated with nurses’ ratings of patient care quality

The impact of registered nurse (RN) staffing on patient care quality has been extensively studied. Identifying additional modifiable work environment factors linked to patient care quality is critical as the projected shortage of approximately 250,000 RNs over the next 15 years will limit institutions' ability to rely on RN staffing alone to ensure high-quality care. We examined the association between RNs' ratings of patient care quality and several novel work environment factors adjusting for the effects of two staffing variables: reported patient-to-RN ratios and ratings of staffing adequacy. We used a cross-sectional, correlational design and a mailed survey to collect data in 2009 from a national sample of RNs (n = 1,439) in the United States. A multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the data. Work group cohesion, nurse-physician relations, procedural justice, organizational constraints, and physical work environment were associated with RNs' ratings of quality, adjusting for staffing. Furthermore, employment in a Magnet hospital and job satisfaction were positively related to ratings of quality, whereas supervisory support was not. Our evidence demonstrates the importance of considering RN work environment factors other than staffing when planning improvements in patient care quality. Health care managers can use the results of our study to strategically allocate resources toward work environment factors that have the potential to improve quality of care.

Missed nursing care: Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine whether the amount, type, and reasons of missed nursing care differ between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. MethodData were collected from 124 medical-surgical, intermediate, intensive care, and rehabilitation units in 11 hospitals located in the Midwest and Western regions of the United States. A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted. The MISSCARE Survey was utilized to collect data on the level of perceived missed nursing care, and nursing staffing data was collected for each study unit. FindingsMissed nursing care showed significant differences according to Magnet status. Separate analysis showed no staffing-level difference between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. ConclusionsThe authors concluded that efficiencies in operations, work environment, and culture characterized by Magnet hospitals should be promoted.

Magnet Hospital: Institutions of Excellence

JubiläumsbeiträgeMagnet Hospital: Institutions of ExcellenceKramer and SchmalenbergKramerSearch for more papers by this author and SchmalenbergSearch for more papers by this authorPublished OnlineDecember 20, 2012https://doi.org/10.1024/1012-5302/a000217PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit SectionsMoreFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byEarly Identification of Delirium in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Improving the Quality of CareCritical Care Nurse, Vol. 40, No. 2Changing our lens: seeing the chaos of professional practice as complexity23 May 2013 | Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 21, No. 4Components and Strategies of Nurse Residency Programs Effective in New Graduate Socialization9 November 2012 | Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 35, No. 5 Volume 25Issue 4July 2012ISSN: 1012-5302eISSN: 1664-283X tabs.informationPflege (2012), 25, pp. 299-304 https://doi.org/10.1024/1012-5302/a000217.© 2012Hogrefe AGPDF download

Normal Newborn Nursery – Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: What's in Between?

Newborn Care Poster Presentation Purpose for the Program A trend of term newborns requiring transfer from the newborn nursery to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was identified in a Level III NICU at a Magnet hospital. This offering will detail the pragmatic strategies utilized to decrease NICU admissions of high-risk transition newborns and present specific obstetric-related diagnoses.

Taxonomical Risk Assessment

Issue: The Special Care Nursery (SCN) at a community Magnet hospital had a total of nine Catheter Associated Blood Stream Infections (CABSIs) from January 2008 to August 2009. Project: The Special Care Nursery (SCN) is a 12-bed Level III Nursery within a 258-bed, not-for-profit, Magnet hospital located in North Carolina that offers a full range of medical services and specialties to a 5-county region. From September 2009-June 2010, the SCN participated with the Perinatal Quality Collaborative of North Carolina (PQCNC) in a project to decrease CABSIs in neonates. A total of 13 intensive care nurseries participated. While the SCN CABSI rate was considered low for a unit of its size, even one CABSI was too many. The PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) cycle for process improvement for the SCN included implementing new evidence-based practices to decrease the chance of infections. These practices included: Discontinuing the central lines as soon as possible (to decrease the possibility of an infection occurring), Using sterile gloves during tubing changes (to maintain line sterility), Applying 3.15% Chlorhexidine on hubs, 2% Chlorhexidine on infants that qualify (a more effective skin disinfectant), Utilizing a closed system for umbilical arterial catheters (less likely to cause an infection), and Obtaining a dedicated X-ray machine that stays in the SCN (to prevent contamination throughout the hospital). During the duration of this project, nurses completed forms every shift documenting insertion and maintenance techniques. Chart audits, observations and data entry ensured compliance from nurses, mid-level practitioners and physicians. Results: The goal for this project from September 2009-June 2010 was to decrease the CABSI infections by 50%. This goal was met, and exceeded in the months to follow. In 2010, the SCN had 2 CABSIs, with a rate of 3.19. In 2011, the SCN had zero CABSIs. Overall, the PQCNC experienced a 62% decrease in CABSIs across the state, which is equivalent to approximately 8 lives and 2 Â1⁄2 million dollars saved. While the collaborative initiative ended in June 2010, the SCN continued the practice changes that were made and celebrated one year with zero CABSIs on November 2, 2011. We have now started the second project with PQCNC, and expect continued success. Lesson Learned: While the SCN had a very low rate of CABSIs in previous years, it is now known that having zero CABSIs is achievable. The evidence based practices that were put into practice will continue and new ideas will be implemented to prevent CABSIs in neonates.

Standardizing Environmental Cleaning Procedures and Measurement Across a 12-Hospital System

Project: MCCG is a 637 bed, academic medical center, designated Level 1 Trauma Center and Magnet hospital for nursing excellence. Goals * Improve Hand Hygiene compliance from 34% to 65% in year one, increasing to, and sustaining at, 85% following year. Note: data benchmarks recommended by 3M Education Division consultation. * Utilize best practices products, compliance monitoring, implementation and sustainability strategies. * Assess risk factors for, and remove barriers to, Hand Hygiene non-compliance. * Assure Administrative and Governing Board priority of the PI project. Innovation * Utilization of multiple methods of monitoring: mystery shopper observations, patient interviews, product usage. * Partners In Hand Hygiene program encourages patients, families and visitors to remind all staff and visitors to wash their hands. Mystery Shopper visits patients for perception of compliance. Patients rate staff (physicians included) on compliance. * Weekly surveillance program is rigorous * Short turnaround time and transparent dissemination of data within 2 days to departments encourage immediate “job well done” or corrective action. * Professional marketing of “speak up” buttons, flyers, patient brochure, staff engagement.* * Individual unit “spin” on the campaign; examples: Staff say,ladybug if a peer or physician out of compliance. Results discussed in huddles, interdisciplinary rounds, linked to HAI results. Peer mystery shopper assigned for a day give out coupons for “well done”. Meetings with key physicians to address what would help improve hand hygiene compliance.

Success in Preventing Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections- What works?

The general medical unit at a community Magnet hospital had a total of 10 Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs) in 2008 and 2009 combined, a rate of 1.79. Following the North Carolina Hospital Association (NCHA) NC Quality Center Prevent CAUTI Collaborative kickoff meeting in March 2010, a multidisciplinary team was formed to reduce CAUTIs.

The Organizational Transformative Power of Nurse Residency Programs

Residency programs for newly licensed registered nurses (NLRNs) have been strongly advocated by the Institute of Medicine, American Organization of Nurse Executives, and other professional organizations. Their cost-effectiveness as well as their impact on NLRN retention, job and practice satisfaction, improved performance, and reduction in environmental reality shock has been demonstrated. This qualitative study sought answers to the question: what people, components, processes and activities of Nurse Residency Programs (NRPs), and the work environment are instrumental in the transition and integration of NLRNs into the professional practice role and into professional communities? In the course of interviewing 907 nurses-NLRNs, experienced nurses, managers, and educators-practicing on clinical units with confirmed "very healthy work environments" in 20 Magnet hospitals, it became evident that not only did NRPs positively impact the professional socialization of NLRNs, they led to transformative changes in the organization and in the practice of other health care professionals. The organizational transformative changes described by the interviewees are presented for each of the 7 major challenges identified by NLRNs-delegation, prioritization, managing patient care delivery, autonomous decision-making, collaboration with other disciplines, constructive conflict resolution, and utilizing feedback to restore self-confidence. If it can be demonstrated that these transformative changes stimulated by NRPs also lead to improved patient outcomes, NRPs may be the most significant organization transformation instituted by nurse leaders in recent years.

Hospital Outreach to Support Faith Community Nursing

A Faith Community Nurse (FCN) Program was initiated by a Magnet hospital and developed through collaboration between hospital departments and a university nurse educator. This article describes the program's development and activities that offer FCNs networking, free continuing education, and are an extension of the hospital's mission and values.

On the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

Doctoral degrees in nursing fall into two categories. The first is the researchfocused doctorate, the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Doctor of Nursing Science (DNSc or DNS); and the second is the practice doctorate or Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). Nurses who graduate from research-focused doctoral programs are or should be prepared to generate new evidence for the profession. Nurses who graduate from the practice-focused doctorate are or should be prepared to be experts in advanced nursing practice and leaders in applying the best evidence to improve nursing practice, whether it be clinical, academic, or administrative. The authors should indicate our bias upfront. We believe that the DNP degree is meant to prepare leaders to improve practice and thus the focus of the degree should be on implementing practice change that improves outcomes for patients, nurses, and/ or students. Thus there should be a strong evidence-based practice (EBP) component in the curriculum, and the capstone in these programs should be on evidence synthesis and/or practice improvement projects (which can also be administrative or educational in nature), not research. The DNP degree has continued to blossom since the American Association of the Colleges of Nursing (AACN) released their Position statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing in 2004. There are currently 153 DNP programs in the United States with an additional 160 nursing schools planning similar programs (AACN, 2011). Existing DNP programs follow either a clinical, educational, or administrative track to prepare leaders in each of these areas. All DNP programs are expected to include in their curriculum the seven Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Practice Nurses developed by the AACN (2006). Included in the Essentials is the edict that DNP graduates be able to . . . demonstrate refined assessment skills and base practice on the application of biophysical, psychosocial, behavioral, sociopolitical, cultural, economic, and nursing science as appropriate in their area of specialization (AACN, 2006, p. 16). The DNP degree was conceived as an educational program to prepare graduates to be experts and leaders in evidence-based practice. The DNP clinician is ideally prepared to improve healthcare outcomes by facilitating the translation of current, best evidence into clinical practice. The DNP is proposed by AACN as the terminal degree for advanced practice nurses. DNP graduates may continue to work in the same practice environments with other nurses with different educational levels as well as other health care disciplines. Many organizations are still trying to determine how to utilize the DNP graduate within their practice environments. With pending health care reform, the threat of reduced reimbursement for poor outcomes, and the ongoing shortage of primary care providers, it is crucial for current best evidence to be quickly translated into clinical practice to improve outcomes for the patients and communities we serve. In addition, many healthcare organizations are applying for Magnet status, a recognition program developed by the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) for high-quality nursing care. Magnet hospitals must demonstrate their contribution to generating knowledge, innovations, and improvements for the professions through the translation and application of existing evidence and by identifying areas where new research is needed (ANCC, 2011). Despite the Institute of Medicine's (2011) challenge for nursing to reconceptualize the role of nurses while developing innovative solutions to care delivery, many barriers to full implementation of evidence-based practice still exist. Nurses continually report lack of time as the most common barrier to applying evidencebased practice approaches to clinical practice (Bertulis, 2008; Brown, Wickline, Ecoff, & Glaser, 2009; Pravikoff, Tanner, & Pierce, 2005). Other barriers that have been reported include the difficulty accessing resources, poor computer skills, poor understanding of statistics and research technique, inadequate preparation to critically appraise research, lack of support from administration and other staff, and a disbelief that evidence-based practice can improve outcomes (Bertulis, 2008; Brown et al. …

Comparison of Patient Outcomes in Magnet® and Non-Magnet Hospitals

: This study compared patient outcomes and staffing in Magnet® and non-Magnet hospitals. : The pursuit of Magnet designation is a highly regarded program for improving staff and patient outcomes. Research has confirmed that Magnet hospitals provide positive work environments for nurses. Research related to patient outcomes in Magnet hospitals is scarce, and results vary. : The University Health Systems Consortium provided the clinical and operational databases for the study. Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, a comparison of patient outcomes and nurse staffing in general units and ICUs of Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals was studied. : Non-Magnet hospitals had better patient outcomes than Magnet hospitals. Magnet hospitals had slightly better outcomes for pressure ulcers, but infections, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative metabolic derangement outcomes were worse in Magnet hospitals. Magnet hospitals also had lower staffing numbers. : Magnet hospitals in this study had less total staff and a lower RN skill mix compared with non-Magnet hospitals, which contributed to the outcomes.

Introducing the Official Leadership Journal of the Magnet Recognition Program®

In this monthly department, sponsored by the Magnet Recognition Program, updates will be provided on news and initiatives, research findings, Magnet Model components, and best practices among Magnet hospitals. This month, the author provides an overview of the Magnet Recognition Program.

The diffusion of Magnet hospital recognition

Magnet recognition is promoted by many in the practice community as the gold standard of nursing care quality. The Magnet hospital population has exploded in recent years, with about 8% of U.S. general hospitals now recognized. The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics that distinguish Magnet-recognized hospitals from other hospitals within the framework of diffusion theory. We conceptualize Magnet recognition as an organizational innovation and Magnet-recognized hospitals as adopters of the innovation. We hypothesize that adoption is associated with selected characteristics of hospitals and their markets. The study population consists of the 3,657 general hospitals in the United States in 2008 located in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. We used logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of Magnet recognition with organizational and market characteristics. Empirical results support hypotheses that adoption is positively associated with hospital complexity and specialization, as measured by teaching affiliation, and with hospital size, slack resources, and not-for-profit or public ownership (vs. for-profit). Adopters also are more likely to be located in markets that are experiencing population growth and are more likely to have competitor hospitals within the market that also have adopted Magnet status. A positive association of adoption with baccalaureate nursing school supply is contrary to the hypothesized relationship. Because of its rapid recent growth, consideration of Magnet program recognition should be on the strategic planning agenda of hospitals and hospital systems. Hospital administrators, particularly in smaller, for-profit hospitals, may expect more of their larger not-for-profit competitors, particularly teaching hospitals, to adopt Magnet recognition, increasing competition for baccalaureate-prepared registered nurses in the labor market.

The New Information Professional: Your Guide to Careers in the Digital Age

The three authors of The New Information Professional are directors in the School of Information at the University of Michigan in the departments of admissions and student affairs (Lawson) and career development (Kroll and Kowatch). They have put together a very well-organized and well-indexed text on career planning for new information professionals. Chapters represent fields of interest, both traditional and innovative, related to information science careers, such as archives and preservation, records management, and libraries, as well as human-computer interaction, social computing, information policy, and information analysis and retrieval. A final chapter offers advice for designing one's own career as well as a tool for an action plan. All chapters, except the last, are consistently organized, making the book a useful read either as a broad overview of potential careers or as a reference book for brief information on a particular profession. Along with an introduction, skills, and professional roles, each chapter includes information on future potential, salary expectations, and professional organization resources and a brief piece on education and training. First-person narratives by professionals in each field round out the chapters, which give the reader a personalized sense of the specialty—much as interviewing a working professional might. Multiple perspectives are presented for each specialty. There is much to appreciate in the design of the book. Every chapter has a career map and a reference list. Occasional “QUICK FACT!” callouts are sprinkled throughout the book at the margins to facilitate skimming or to point out important things to remember. Chapters each have a “Key Words to Know” boxed table related to the particular specialized language of the profession covered. For visual thinkers, a flow chart serves to map each career from education and key coursework through internships, job titles, and relevant industries. These career maps are listed after the table of contents, making them easy to find. An appendix lists twenty-four iSchools and refers the reader to the American Library Association for other accredited schools of library science. Links are also provided to look up human-computer interaction programs and the Society of American Archivists programs. In fact, the design of the book will make it a useful and interesting read for the audience it is most intended to serve (the new information professional). The one unfortunate omission in this book is a chapter on the field of hospital information specialists or embedded clinical librarians. We get only the briefest mentions related to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) issues in the records management chapter; generic, short job descriptions in a couple of places; and one profile of an integration specialist in the information analysis and retrieval chapter. While the example is appreciated, the career is definitely underreported. There are many positive, proactive initiatives that require the support of information professionals in the field of health care. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) promote comparative effectiveness research, and they specifically include working with an information specialist in their standards. Nurses' Magnet hospital accreditation focuses on evidence-based practice (EBP)—meaning translating the research evidence to daily clinical practice—which has evolved with the support of information specialists through searches, critical analysis, outreach and collaboration, and teaching of the EBP process. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's “100,000 Lives” campaign has achieved and extended its goal to “Protecting 5 Million Lives” through specific, focused quality improvement that is supported by librarian searches and supports that bridge the gap from research to practice in health care. The electronic medical record (EMR) is noted in sample job descriptions and the aforementioned profile, but little related to the information aspects (MedlinePlus Connect or an info-button) is covered. Perhaps in the second edition of the book, the University of Michigan's School of Information will recognize and value our work in health care as much as they do in other arenas. Kim Dority's Rethinking Information Work and Rachel Singer Gordon's The NextGen Librarian's Survival Guide are excellent books that supported and promoted the iSchool concept early after the movement's inception. Lawson, Kroll, and Kowatch have given us an updated career guide that accepts and assumes library science's transformation to information professionals, and they have written an easy-to-use career guide reference for career counselors and new graduates. Librarians thinking of getting into a new venue may also find this book valuable. This book is recommended as a useful resource for recruitment to the information profession in all college career centers and for library and information science graduate program collections, as well as an introduction to the possibilities of the profession for individuals considering the master of library and information science degree.

Adoption of National Quality Forum Safe Practices by Magnet® Hospitals

: Magnet hospitals (MHs) are known for their high retention rates of nurses and positive work environment, yet little is known about whether MHs also have higher levels of safe practice adoption rates compared with non-Magnet hospitals (NMHs). : In this study, we investigate adoption of National Quality Forum (NQF) Safe Practices in 34 regions during 2004 to 2006 that were part of the Leapfrog Group initiative to improve quality of hospital care. We conducted a secondary data analysis by combining multiple data sets from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Healthcare Cost Reports Information System, and Leapfrog Group Annual Hospital Survey. A composite safe practice score (CSPS) was constructed from the Leapfrog annual survey and ranged from 0 (no adoption) to 1,000 (complete adoption) of the 30 NQF Safe Practices. A descriptive analysis and a regression with Heckman correction to control for selection bias were used to determine the effect of Magnet status and other hospital and market characteristics on differences in CSPS over the 3-year period. : There were 140 MHs and 1,320 NMHs reporting data for the CSPS. In 2004, MHs had a mean CSPS of 865 versus 774 for NMHs (P < .001). By 2006, NMHs improved their CSPS from 774 to 872 (98 points), whereas MHs improved their CSPS from 865 to 925 (60 points, P < .001). Regression analysis showed a positive and significant effect of Magnet status of hospitals on the adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices as measured by the CSPS. Our results also indicated that smaller hospitals (in bed size), hospitals with larger share of Medicare patients, higher nurse intensity levels (mean hours of nursing care per day), and higher levels of competition among hospitals in Leapfrog rollout regions were associated with higher CSPS. : Magnet hospitals in the urban areas of 34 Leapfrog rollout regions were more likely to have higher adoption rates of NQF Safe Practices in comparison to NMHs in the same demographic areas during the time frame of the study, but other hospitals nearly closed the gap by 2006.

Introduction for “Reiki at University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, a Magnet Hospital”

There is a sustained interest in the use of Reiki among US consumers and health care providers and lay practitioners alike. As a result, hospitals and other health care institutions are incorporating Reiki into patient care services toward the promotion of caring-healing environments. Variations in hospital-based program structures with Reiki are possible and can enhance the use of Reiki into traditional care settings.

Reiki at University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, a Magnet Hospital

Reiki at University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, a Magnet Hospital