The importance of budgeting with nontraditional staffing patterns

Are nontraditional staffing patterns cost effective? The advantages qualitatively seem to outweigh the disadvantages, but the numbers, when examined quickly, present an opposing view. Each institution is individual and thus the hospital administrators must assess the real reasons for their staffing and budgetary problems. Nontraditional staffing patterns have been shown to decrease the use and cost of agency personnel; therefore, the schedules are cost effective if a hospital frequently utilizes these services. A blanket statement cannot be made for all institutions. Another fact attributed to these innovative staffing patterns, the decrease in the turnover rate, needs to be further assessed. For although hospital employees in general considered inflexible scheduling a common reason for dissatisfaction, each institution must examine itself before changing schedules. For some hospitals, turnover can be decreased by using other benefits. An example taken from a New York City hospital that had a moderately high turnover rate found turnover rate due to inaccessibility to public transportation. A change with the scheduling would not have greatly decreased the turnover rate, but a shuttle service from the major subway and bus stations did. Thus the point is that nontraditional staffing patterns may not appear cost effective upon first looking at the numbers, but after an individual assessment of each institution the real need for change in scheduling patterns can be determined. Also benefit percentages and use of overtime must be calculated carefully. Last, with the present and projected hospital personnel shortages, cost effectiveness may sometimes be overlooked in order to meet staffing requirements. This fact exemplifies the need for hospital administrators to acquire budgeting knowledge in order to assess cost effectiveness and prevent hospital losses.