The Float Pool That Nobody Wants
You are the new CNO of a 320-bed community hospital. Six months ago, administration replaced the per-diem float pool with a single internal resource team (IRT) that pays a $6/hour premium and requires 3 shifts per pay period. Since launch: IRT vacancy is 41% (target 10%), agency spend has risen from $180K to $410K/month, and med-surg turnover has climbed from 11% to 19% annualized. Exit interviews cite 'schedule inflexibility' and 'losing my home unit.' Unit managers say they cannot plan because IRT nurses are pulled first to the ED and ICU, leaving med-surg short. The CFO wants to scrap the IRT and return to per-diem by Q3. The CMO wants a 90-day moratorium on any staffing model change. You have one month before the next budget cycle locks.
1. Before recommending keep, modify, or scrap the IRT, what data and stakeholder input do you require, and how do you structure the decision so it survives CFO and CMO scrutiny?
Read the worked answer
The decision is not 'IRT vs. per-diem' - it is 'which staffing design meets demand at acceptable cost and retention.' I would not vote on the model until I have:
- Demand data: 12 months of shift-level vacancy by unit, by day/time, and the fill source (IRT, agency, overtime, cross-trained staff). This tells me whether the premium is being spent on the right shifts.
- Cost decomposition: Fully loaded cost per shift for each source (IRT premium + benefits + orientation vs. agency bill rate vs. overtime at 1.5x). Agency at $410K/month may be cheaper than the modeled IRT premium if IRT fill is only 59%.
- Retention data: Who is leaving, from which units, and did they leave the IRT or their home unit? The 'losing my home unit' theme suggests the design flaw is the pull-first rule, not the premium.
- Pull-rule audit: Quantify how often IRT nurses are reassigned away from the unit that requested them. If the ED/ICU override is routine, med-surg managers are correct that the IRT is unreliable.
Structure: convene a short-cycle workgroup (CFO designee, CMO designee, 3 unit managers, 2 IRT nurses, HR analytics) with a 3-week charter and a decision matrix scored on fill rate, cost per filled shift, retention, and manager predictability. Publish the criteria before the data. That inoculates the process against the charge that the answer was pre-decided. Bring a modified-IRT option (unit-based premium with limited pull rights, or a 2-tier per-diem bridge) so the CFO is not choosing between 'status quo' and 'scrap.'
2. The CMO's 90-day moratorium conflicts with the CFO's Q3 deadline. How do you resolve this as CNO?
Read the worked answer
I reframe both constraints as a shared risk statement rather than a scheduling fight. The CFO's real concern is uncontrolled agency spend; the CMO's real concern is destabilizing staffing mid-summer. Both are legitimate.
My move: propose a phased decision gate rather than a binary moratorium or a hard Q3 scrap.
- Weeks 1-3: Data workgroup runs (no model change). This satisfies the CMO's stability request for the acute period.
- Week 4: Interim operational fix that does not require a model decision - suspend the pull-first override for med-surg-requested IRT shifts for 60 days and measure fill and turnover. This is reversible and cheap.
- Week 6: Workgroup presents scored options to the executive team with a recommendation. Budget cycle gets a placeholder line, not a locked number.
- Week 10: Final decision, implemented for the next fiscal quarter.
I would say plainly to both: 'I will not defend a model that costs $410K/month in agency while losing 19% of med-surg nurses, and I will not change a model without data that the change will help. Give me six weeks and you get a defensible answer for the budget.' That converts an authority conflict into a shared timeline. If either leader refuses, I escalate to the CEO with the risk framing - patient safety exposure from turnover and uncontrolled agency cost are both CEO-level risks.
3. What is your preliminary hypothesis about the root cause, and what would falsify it?
Read the worked answer
Hypothesis: The IRT failed because of the pull-first reassignment rule, not the premium or the 3-shift requirement. The premium is attractive; the loss of unit belonging and unpredictable reassignment are what drove both the 41% vacancy and the med-surg exits. Evidence supporting: exit themes ('losing my home unit,' 'schedule inflexibility'), manager reports of routine pulls, and rising med-surg turnover concentrated after launch.
What would falsify it:
- If IRT vacancy is high even among nurses who were never pulled (check reassignment logs against IRT roster), then the 3-shift/3-pay-period structure or the premium is the binding constraint.
- If med-surg turnover rose equally on units with no IRT exposure, the cause is market-wide, not the model.
- If agency spend is concentrated in ED/ICU rather than med-surg, then the IRT is doing its job and the cost problem is a demand problem, not a design problem.
I would state the hypothesis and the falsification tests to the workgroup up front so the analysis is honest. If the pull rule is the cause, the fix is structural (unit-anchored IRT with capped pull rights), not financial - which is cheaper and faster than scrapping the model.