Latest Likes For Jolie

Latest Likes For Jolie

Jolie 23,850 Views

Joined Oct 17, '01. Posts: 9,432 (48% Liked) Likes: 13,238

Sorted By Last Like Received (Max 500)
  • Aug 18

    Ive never met a school nurse, but if I ever do, I dont know whether I will just tell her off about how little I think of her or just roll around on the floor laughing at her.[/quote]


    Oh please! Some idiot parent brings a child into the ER because scabies is going around, and it's the school nurse's fault!

  • Jul 27

    I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your current situation. You must weigh the pros and cons of breaking your contract, moving to a new area, starting a new job and new life. No one here can possibly know how your current employer will react, how a future employer will receive you or what your tolerance will be for the financial, social or practical aspects of such a change.

    I am a former nurse manager, currently a hiring manager in a different field and the mother of 2 young adults who will soon be making decisions similar to yours. Please accept my input as it is intended: to help you think about your choices and encourage you to think beyond the immediate term.

    First of all, you have a contract. Undoubtedly it spells out the consequences of failing to complete your agreed-upon term of service. I encourage you to read it and be prepared to accept what is written. If you agreed to a monetary payback of $X for leaving after a year, expect to owe your employer that full amount of money. While it is possible that they will choose not to collect, don't count on it. They invested a significant amount of money in your degree and on the job training, and per your contract, they have a right to a portion of that money back if you do not fulfill your obligation. It's nothing personal. It's their responsibility to hire and train your replacement, and that costs money. If you don't have the money or aren't willing to be in-debt to them, then breaking the contract isn't a good idea. Might you be able to find a new job that would be willing to pay your debt as a type of hiring bonus? Possible, but unlikely. Most positions have multiple applicants. It is not likely that a new employer will be so determined to have you on their staff that they would be willing to pay your debt, but should you get a job offer, you can certainly ask.

    Secondly, I am concerned about your statement that you hate the location where you currently live and hate the people there. I assume that you must have had a somewhat favorable impression of your area and your fellow citizens when you accepted and started your current job. Most people don't voluntarily choose to start a life in an area they dislike, and you don't mention a spouse or other circumstances that forced you to locate here. So I encourage you to thoroughly examine what you are looking for in a community and a job, or I am concerned that you will find yourself equally miserable in a new location a year or two from now. I'm glad that you have heard from others who are happy on the west coast, but please don't mistake that for a guarantee that you will also be happy there. I can assure you that it is NOT the longitude and latitude of their home that makes them happy. It is a sum total of family, friends, health, professional challenge, financial comfort, connectedness, independence, educational opportunities, and many other factors that are specific to each individual.

    Lastly, please understand that while sounding chiche, it is absolutely true that the first year (and really two years) out of school are the most difficult for new professionals. Every workplace has its strengths and weaknesses. You acknowledge that there are some good points to yours. Please make sure that you are evaluating it and any other potential employer objectively and candidly. It is easy to see green grass on the other side of the fence. That grass often turns brown upon closer inspection. Might it be possible and worthwhile to focus on gaining everything possible from your current employer while taking a year to plan a move under more positive circumstances?

    Best of luck to you whatever you decide.

  • Jul 27

    I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your current situation. You must weigh the pros and cons of breaking your contract, moving to a new area, starting a new job and new life. No one here can possibly know how your current employer will react, how a future employer will receive you or what your tolerance will be for the financial, social or practical aspects of such a change.

    I am a former nurse manager, currently a hiring manager in a different field and the mother of 2 young adults who will soon be making decisions similar to yours. Please accept my input as it is intended: to help you think about your choices and encourage you to think beyond the immediate term.

    First of all, you have a contract. Undoubtedly it spells out the consequences of failing to complete your agreed-upon term of service. I encourage you to read it and be prepared to accept what is written. If you agreed to a monetary payback of $X for leaving after a year, expect to owe your employer that full amount of money. While it is possible that they will choose not to collect, don't count on it. They invested a significant amount of money in your degree and on the job training, and per your contract, they have a right to a portion of that money back if you do not fulfill your obligation. It's nothing personal. It's their responsibility to hire and train your replacement, and that costs money. If you don't have the money or aren't willing to be in-debt to them, then breaking the contract isn't a good idea. Might you be able to find a new job that would be willing to pay your debt as a type of hiring bonus? Possible, but unlikely. Most positions have multiple applicants. It is not likely that a new employer will be so determined to have you on their staff that they would be willing to pay your debt, but should you get a job offer, you can certainly ask.

    Secondly, I am concerned about your statement that you hate the location where you currently live and hate the people there. I assume that you must have had a somewhat favorable impression of your area and your fellow citizens when you accepted and started your current job. Most people don't voluntarily choose to start a life in an area they dislike, and you don't mention a spouse or other circumstances that forced you to locate here. So I encourage you to thoroughly examine what you are looking for in a community and a job, or I am concerned that you will find yourself equally miserable in a new location a year or two from now. I'm glad that you have heard from others who are happy on the west coast, but please don't mistake that for a guarantee that you will also be happy there. I can assure you that it is NOT the longitude and latitude of their home that makes them happy. It is a sum total of family, friends, health, professional challenge, financial comfort, connectedness, independence, educational opportunities, and many other factors that are specific to each individual.

    Lastly, please understand that while sounding chiche, it is absolutely true that the first year (and really two years) out of school are the most difficult for new professionals. Every workplace has its strengths and weaknesses. You acknowledge that there are some good points to yours. Please make sure that you are evaluating it and any other potential employer objectively and candidly. It is easy to see green grass on the other side of the fence. That grass often turns brown upon closer inspection. Might it be possible and worthwhile to focus on gaining everything possible from your current employer while taking a year to plan a move under more positive circumstances?

    Best of luck to you whatever you decide.

  • Jul 27

    I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your current situation. You must weigh the pros and cons of breaking your contract, moving to a new area, starting a new job and new life. No one here can possibly know how your current employer will react, how a future employer will receive you or what your tolerance will be for the financial, social or practical aspects of such a change.

    I am a former nurse manager, currently a hiring manager in a different field and the mother of 2 young adults who will soon be making decisions similar to yours. Please accept my input as it is intended: to help you think about your choices and encourage you to think beyond the immediate term.

    First of all, you have a contract. Undoubtedly it spells out the consequences of failing to complete your agreed-upon term of service. I encourage you to read it and be prepared to accept what is written. If you agreed to a monetary payback of $X for leaving after a year, expect to owe your employer that full amount of money. While it is possible that they will choose not to collect, don't count on it. They invested a significant amount of money in your degree and on the job training, and per your contract, they have a right to a portion of that money back if you do not fulfill your obligation. It's nothing personal. It's their responsibility to hire and train your replacement, and that costs money. If you don't have the money or aren't willing to be in-debt to them, then breaking the contract isn't a good idea. Might you be able to find a new job that would be willing to pay your debt as a type of hiring bonus? Possible, but unlikely. Most positions have multiple applicants. It is not likely that a new employer will be so determined to have you on their staff that they would be willing to pay your debt, but should you get a job offer, you can certainly ask.

    Secondly, I am concerned about your statement that you hate the location where you currently live and hate the people there. I assume that you must have had a somewhat favorable impression of your area and your fellow citizens when you accepted and started your current job. Most people don't voluntarily choose to start a life in an area they dislike, and you don't mention a spouse or other circumstances that forced you to locate here. So I encourage you to thoroughly examine what you are looking for in a community and a job, or I am concerned that you will find yourself equally miserable in a new location a year or two from now. I'm glad that you have heard from others who are happy on the west coast, but please don't mistake that for a guarantee that you will also be happy there. I can assure you that it is NOT the longitude and latitude of their home that makes them happy. It is a sum total of family, friends, health, professional challenge, financial comfort, connectedness, independence, educational opportunities, and many other factors that are specific to each individual.

    Lastly, please understand that while sounding chiche, it is absolutely true that the first year (and really two years) out of school are the most difficult for new professionals. Every workplace has its strengths and weaknesses. You acknowledge that there are some good points to yours. Please make sure that you are evaluating it and any other potential employer objectively and candidly. It is easy to see green grass on the other side of the fence. That grass often turns brown upon closer inspection. Might it be possible and worthwhile to focus on gaining everything possible from your current employer while taking a year to plan a move under more positive circumstances?

    Best of luck to you whatever you decide.

  • Jul 21

    This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

    Chicago is home to a number of well-regarded Nurse Practitioner education programs, most of which are offered "on site" and include clinical placements as part of the planned curriculum.

    I understand that you will be attending a program in another city (on-line or in person?) and will need to find your own preceptorship in the Chicago area. I honestly don't believe that will be an easy task. The institutions that are best suited to providing such experiences are already doing so for the established programs in the area. Other places of employment are not likely as well suited to providing educational supervision and experiences, or simply not interested in doing so. Precepting is a difficult, time consuming task that challenges even those well prepared for it. I don't see many employers willingly taking on this role for anyone other than a current employee or a prospective one.

    I believe that the requirement to find one's own preceptorship should be thoroughly investigated prior to enrolling or spending any money on an education program. It would be a deal breaker for me.

  • Jul 12

    If you are certain that you will not attend, simply contact them by the usual means of communication (such as an e-mail to your admissions representative) and state that you appreciate their confidence in you, but you will not be attending.

    I doubt that you will be able to use the drug screen for any other purpose. Any future employer will likely insist on one done under their supervision, but $150 is a small price to pay for avoiding overwhelming student debt, for which I applaud you

    Best of luck to you!

  • Jul 7

    Quote from Julius Seizure
    I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).

    Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?

    Can you imagine if a Catholic hospital had a policy that they would not hire anyone who used prescription birth control pills?
    There is no single list of "safety-sensitive medications. The drugs of concern to one employer in a given setting may not be an issue for another employer in a different setting. Those that I know to have been reviewed by various employers have included medications with a high likelihood to impair one's level of alertness, reaction time, judgment, etc. Some significant factors that posters may not be considering include whether the individual works alone or with others, whether s/he operates potentially hazardous equipment or drives in the course of employment, whether the employee is solely responsible for the well-being of minor children or dependent adults at work, the strenuousness of physical activity and cognitive demands of the job, and whether the job requires irregular hours or on-call time that could make it impossible to time medications so that they don't interfere with working hours.

    I was recently involved in a situation where a candidate's drug screen indicated use of a prescribed controlled substance. Because of the sensitive nature of the individual's work (which I won't disclose here), the employee was notified that a discussion with his/her healthcare provider was necessary in order to determine fitness for the job. It was the candidate's physician who indicated that the side effects of the medication rendered the candidate capable of the work required and advised not to hire for THAT position, although there were other that were suitable.

    This type of consultation is allowable and appropriate under the ADA, and protects all parties involved: the candidate, the employer and the individuals served by the employee.

    As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.

  • Jul 7

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • Jul 6

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.

  • Jul 6

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.

  • Jul 5

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • Jul 3

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?

  • Jul 3

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?

  • Jul 3

    If anyone else addressed this, I missed it.

    You did the right thing by using your critical thinking skills to question a seemingly inappropriate set of orders. I don't believe that it is within your scope of practice as a medication aid to contact the physician for clarification, and certainly not to take a verbal order altering or discontinuing the medication.

    You went as far as you could by calling this to the attention of the nurse, and she met her responsibility by clarifying the order with the physician. You both considered the patient's well being, which is the ultimate goal.

    Those who are running around panicking are doing so because they have a poor understanding of of their legal and professional practice obligations, a poor understanding of the medication in question, or because they know they screwed up and are trying to deflect attention.

    Not your circus.

  • Jul 2

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?


close
close