TOP 10 Countries by Nurses per 1,000 (2025)

Indicator definition

The core metric is nurses and midwives per 1,000 people, published by the World Bank as indicator SH.MED.NUMW.P3. The WHO equivalent is usually expressed per 10,000 population. The numerator is a headcount of nurses and midwives; the denominator is the population estimate for the same reporting year.

Data year and source logic

Countries do not report on one synchronized timetable. There is no single 2025 census for this indicator. This ranking is therefore a latest available comparative snapshot, not a single-year census table. The rows kept here are the more defensible visible entries in the current WHO / World Bank layer after removing older legacy observations that would otherwise make the top list look more current than it really is.

Processing and rounding

Values are shown as reported in the comparative layer and rounded to one decimal place. No full-time-equivalent adjustment is applied. Countries with missing or clearly non-comparable data are excluded from the visible list.

Limitations

1. Nordic systems still define the upper frontier

Finland, Norway and Iceland remain close to the top because they built nurse-intensive welfare systems around primary care, municipal services, long-term care and broader nurse scope-of-practice. These countries did not arrive at high density by accident; they sustained staffing through deliberate workforce planning.

2. High spending ≠ highest nurse density

The United States spends more on healthcare per capita than any other large system, yet it sits below Finland, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Ireland, Australia and Malta in this density table. Germany and France also rank below the Nordic leaders despite generous health budgets. Spending level and workforce model are not the same thing.

3. The tighter version of the ranking is more useful

Removing much older legacy rows makes the visible ranking shorter, but it also makes the page more defensible. A cleaner 18-row list built around more current reporting years is more useful than a nominal top 20 that quietly mixes 2022 with much older observations.

4. Post-pandemic pressure still matters even in nurse-dense systems

High nurse density today does not mean workforce stress has been solved. OECD reporting still points to attrition, burnout, retirement pressure and recruitment gaps across many high-income systems, especially where ageing populations continue to push demand upward.

5. International recruitment remains part of the story

Several nurse-dense countries still depend materially on internationally educated nurses. That raises a second-order question: whether destination countries are improving staffing through domestic training and retention, or through recruitment from countries with much weaker workforce capacity.

If you are using this ranking to compare healthcare systems or assess health workforce policy, keep three things in mind.

• Why does WHO report nurses per 10,000 instead of per 1,000?

  WHO often uses per 10,000 because the resulting numbers are easier to communicate across lower-density countries. The values are directly convertible: multiply the per-1,000 figure by 10.

• Does this ranking include midwives separately from nurses?

  No. The World Bank indicator and WHO equivalent combine nurses and midwives into one headcount. In some countries that slightly lifts the figure relative to a nurse-only measure.

• Why were some older high-density rows removed from the visible ranking?

  Because the stricter version reduces reliance on much older country observations. Some entries still look high in the international comparative layer, but if the latest visible reporting year is much older than the rest of the table, treating that row as a current peer can be misleading.

• Does higher nurse density automatically mean better health outcomes?

  Not automatically, but the overall relationship is broadly positive. Higher staffing tends to support better hospital safety, stronger chronic-care management and wider preventive coverage.

• How often is this data updated?

  International datasets refresh when countries submit new observations, so rankings can shift partly because reporting years differ, not only because staffing conditions changed in the same calendar year.

• Is there a WHO-style staffing threshold?

  WHO has long used broader combined workforce thresholds for universal health coverage. Every country in the upper visible part of this table is well above those minimum-capacity benchmarks.

All numerical values are sourced from or cross-referenced against the following official datasets. Readers doing formal statistical or policy work should still consult the original source pages directly.