Should CVVHD be 1:1 - page 2
Should it be required that pts on CRTs be kept at a 1:1 ratio? I have a very unstable pt on CVVHD but also have to take on another pt cause my hospital doesn't require 1:1. I think it is ridic because my other patient gets super... Read More
- 0Jul 31, '10 by I_See_You_RN1:1 vent??? I need to work there. Its not atypical for me to get 2 vented patients,... but sometimes with the right sedation their easier anyway .
As for cvvhd,.. my unit tries to keep it 1:1 but that is not guaranteed. I don't believe they triple any nurses to get a 1:1 ratio. As long as the patient is not extremely critical then its usually not a problem. Its just hard at times when the filter clots and it takes 40minutes to start it up back again. there is either a delay in starting it back up or someone elses meds are late, etc.
- 1Aug 7, '10 by Flying ICU RNCVVHD is indicated in patients who are unable to tolerate intermittent hemodialysis, usually for hemodynamic reasons, therefore by default, "unstable." The machine itself is more labor intensive than an IABP which is ironically the more acute therapy of the two. The patientís blood volume is being extracted extra corporally, therefore the primary rational for 1:1 would be safety, and secondary would be for maximum therapeutic management.
The primary reason the private sector doubles up such an assignment is for labor cost effectiveness and no other reason period. Management can double talk the issue, but there it is. I am a Government sector RN, so I (and my patients) are a bit luckier than most.
So how do you deal with this?
Keep two things in mind to determine your actions, "Standard of Care" and "The Prudent Nurse Standard." For the first ABC's, medications, TX and analysis dictate priorities. For the later, effective and very visible (think witnesses) resource utilization, (i.e. Charge Nurse, colleagues, supervisor,..etc.).
- 0Aug 11, '10 by pghfoxfanI always thought that CVVHD and patients on left heart assist should be one to one. I agree that not all patients on CVVHD are unstable, but DANG, the whole procedure itself takes so much time, especially when you have to increase and decrease fluids constantly to balance I&Os. Personally, I think that a unit that runs well as a team (including the charge nurse) can make any assignment doable.
- 0Aug 20, '10 by Esme12, BSN, RN Senior ModeratorQuote from ittybabyRNI'm in a nicu with not much experience yet, but we had a baby on cvvh and he was 1:2 meaning 1 baby w/ 2 nurses, I think he was also very unstable, also ended up on ecmo I believe
A newborn on CVVH,intubated with ECMO.............yeah 1:2...........poor baby.....:redpinkhe
- 5Aug 25, '10 by glasgow3Ahhhhhhhh, the "slippery slope" of critical care staffing ratios. As a seasoned nurse, I remember when having 2 vent patients was considered a big deal......and when getting a third patient was a rarity, something that was only done if one of your others already had transfer orders.....and when a "heart recovery" got 2 nurses for the first 4 hours and 1:1 care for another four hours.......and when IABP and CRRT therapies were always staffed 1:1.
But over time, the rules change and new "concepts" are introduced by management.
Concepts such as the "stable" critical care IABP patient. They're due to have surgical revascularization in the near future and their angina has been totally refractory to medication(s), but since they aren't in full blown cardiogenic shock yet or the like they are considered to be stable----and management has decided that this stable variety of IABP patient is fair game to be paired up with a relatively stable critical care patient. Now, is this staffing change based upon something new in the literature, supporting the practice? Of course not, but hospital A across the street is now staffing that way, so we should too.
But the games don't end there. Down the road an IABP patient who has "bought" the device due to cardiogenic shock after a bad MI comes in. These used to get 1:1 care even after there was some acceptance of the "stable" IABP patient (which could be doubled). But then the criteria for a 1:1 becomes how many vasoactive drips the patient is on...just one or 2? They're stable enough according to management.....and then over time it becomes how frequently the multiple drips must be titrated to qualify as an "unstable" IABP patient.
Meanwhile, the acceptable acuity of the patient the "stable" IABP is paired with moves upwards as well.....and your colleague who used to be able to help you momentarily when your supposedly stable patient is now actively trying to die?-----Well, the powers that be have decided that 3 patients should be a manageable routine patient load for them and they are barely able to keep their head above water with their own assignment.
Now keep in mind the AACN attempted to address the "What is a 1:1 patient?" question over a decade ago using their Synergy Model. I think you'd find many current critical care nurses who would say that they routinely take care of patients who should receive 1:1 care but don't receive it.
Then again, this is an organization who can not even say that there should even be a minimum staffing ratio for critical care patients. Instead of clear leadership, they provide academic gobbledygook about matching patient needs with nurse compentencies while things get crazier and crazier at the bedside.
- 1Nov 20, '10 by matthewrn03CRRT and IABP and Fresh Hearts should always be 1:1. i am appalled that there are hospitals that allow you to take care of a balloon pump with another patient. maybe its because i live in california and that sh#% don't fly here, but come on! you should be constantly watching the timing on your IABP and i can't tell you how many times the CRRT machine has almost clotted off on me and thank god i was right there to stop it. You only get one license and if your facility is not 1:1 ing these patients, you are at serious risk.
The vent 1:1 is a little ridiculous as the easiest assignment on the planet is 2 vents...
- 0Nov 21, '10 by Ruby VeeQuote from pghfoxfanan lvad gets you 1:1? what a nice fantasy! i want to know where you work!i always thought that cvvhd and patients on left heart assist should be one to one. i agree that not all patients on cvvhd are unstable, but dang, the whole procedure itself takes so much time, especially when you have to increase and decrease fluids constantly to balance i&os. personally, i think that a unit that runs well as a team (including the charge nurse) can make any assignment doable.
we routinely double lvads with or without cvvhd. some of our lvads have been here for months and are classified as "chrons" rather than acutes.