[Anxious Patient]

Interesting Wall Street Journal article arguing some possible negatives for legislated nurse/patient ratios, such as:

1 - adding nurses might hurt patient care if it siphons resources away from other services at struggling hospitals.

2 - Too costly - One study suggests that hospitals would spend $48,100 per life saved to increase nurse staffing to one nurse for every five patients from one for every eight.

3 - poor hospitals may ramp up staffing to avoid regulatory trouble; but in return they’ll have to skimp elsewhere, perhaps on infection control, record-keeping software, or other staffing.

(be sure to read the comments section)

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/06/...ality-panacea/

[oramar]

We all know that if those bad nurses would just keep their mouths shut about poor staffing and take 12 patients without complaint all the hospital's problems would go away. The person who wrote this article is a shill for the healthcare industry.

[Anxious Patient]

Originally Posted by oramar

The person who wrote this article is a shill for the healthcare industry.

Yes, it sounds like it. One of the nurses answered back with this:

"If I am a patient, and we all will be at some time, I want the RN taking care of me to have not more than 4 patients. Patients who are in the hospital are sicker and need more care than they did years ago. You need a registered nurse to be able to provide that care. As a nurse, I have all of the accountability and none of the control. When I go to work and get my assignment, I don’t have a say in how many patients I take care of, my manager does. If I say it is an unsafe assignment, I am told to do the best I can. My options right now, take the assignment and risk my license and livelihood or walk. I chose to walk. I am no longer practicing nursing, a career I loved."

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by Anxious Patient

Interesting Wall Street Journal article arguing some possible negatives for legislated nurse/patient ratios, such as:


2 - Too costly - One study suggests that hospitals would spend $48,100 per life saved to increase nurse staffing to one nurse for every five patients from one for every eight.

So the author doesn't place the value of a human life at more than $48,100?

Seems like chump change to me.

[Batman24]

This is all nothing but a bunch of excuses to do what is right. Bottom line is they don't want to spend the money to hire additonal staff. It's all about the almight buck and has nothing to do with patient safety where those in power are concerned. It's shameful how little respect they have for those in pain whose lives can be put at risk by poor ratios. If they don't care about it let them be a patient in a M/S ward where there is a 1:8 ratio on a busy night. See if they change their minds after that.

[interleukin]

Well, here they go again trying to micromanage nursing, seeking the perfect ratio for just the right amount of safety. God forbid your patients should be too safe.

Doesn't it just warm your heart to know how perfectly they understand us and how hospital nursing works?

I left a reply addressing the idiotic comments of the "California executive." I think you'll appreciate it.

[loricatus]

Just goes to show you that the political art of SPIN is alive and flourishing.

[elkpark]

Well, maybe it's just because I've been in nursing so (too!) long, but I must say that I do think it's a little too simplistic to think that an arbitrary ratio is going to suddenly make everything all right. Some hospitals will do the right thing regardless of whether they're forced to or not, and others will manage to find a way around rules like staff/client ratios no matter how airtight the rules seem to be (or, as the article noted, they will do things like cut back in other important areas of care in order to make up the extra $$$ for floor nurses, or simply eliminate all the support staff/services ...) I'm not saying I agree with everything stated in the article, but, if there were a quick, easy answer, we would have figured it out a long time ago ...

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by elkpark

Well, maybe it's just because I've been in nursing so (too!) long, but I must say that I do think it's a little too simplistic to think that an arbitrary ratio is going to suddenly make everything all right. Some hospitals will do the right thing regardless of whether they're forced to or not, and others will manage to find a way around rules like staff/client ratios no matter how airtight the rules seem to be (or, as the article noted, they will do things like cut back in other important areas of care in order to make up the extra $$$ for floor nurses, or simply eliminate all the support staff/services ...) I'm not saying I agree with everything stated in the article, but, if there were a quick, easy answer, we would have figured it out a long time ago ...

You are right - when the ratios became law in California, we had an awesome DON who backed the nurses 100%.

We kept all our ancillary staff (ward clerks, CNA's).

However, the hospital took a different turn with a new CEO and our DON fought for over a year and finally left. The new DON fired all the Ward Clerks and CNA's and that is when I left.

It just depends . . .

steph

[herring_RN]

Without the ratios it could be much worse.
With educated nursing staff united at the unit and facility level it could be much better.
It could actually be safe!