hherrn 12,655 Views
Joined Jun 13, '07.
Posts: 980 (69% Liked)
So then the doctor you refer to is letting his patients make the decision based on risk benefit...isnt that what a provider is supposed to do ethically, isnt that what patient centered care is? When you listen to the drug commercials on television and they list the possible side effects to medications, do you think it makes patients more or less inclined to ask for them? Informed consent is one thing, scare tactics are another. I am not sure which you are speaking.
I never, ever said I thought the flu shot was harmful, and I dont know how words are being twisted.
1) the flu shot can be, and is, beneficial. I personally do not feel it is effective enough based on what the CDC states for me personally to get it UNLESS i am required to do so. THAT is my choice.
2) I would never talk a patient out if getting vaccinated, or any other treatment. If a patient directly asked me the statistics on the flu shot, I would show them the stats from the CDC, and advise them as per the CDC is it highly recommended. Period. I would never advise otherwise unless the recommendations changed.
No doctor or any provider should be hiding information on the risk vs. benefit of a procedure.
Despite huge amounts of preparations, most people don't understand the test design.
You feel terrible because you got a huge amount of questions wrong. Around half. Of the half you got right, some were lucky wild guesses, some were the result of ruling out one or two answers and using good test taking strategy. So, the percentage of questions you were able to confidently answer correctly is pretty small.
An excerpt from this discussion.
Jul 24, '07 by rn/writer
Everyone will finish with approximately 50% of their answers correct and 50% of their answers incorrect. What determines whether you passed or not was the level of difficulty at which you reached that 50% rate.
If question levels were rated 1-10 (just hypothetical here), you might start with a level 5 question. Pass it, and you'll get a level 6 question. Pass that one, and you get a level 7. Oops, now you missed. Back to level 6. And so on.
If you start with a 5 and miss, you'd go to level 4. Miss that, and now you're down to level 3. Miss that one, and you slip to level 2.
Up and down you go until the program determines the level at which you consistently find yourself. You can miss 50% of higher level questions and still qualify. But let's say that you keep missing easy questions. At some point, the program is going to determine that you are not well-equpped enough to handle the basics and it will shut off.
It isn't the number of questions you get right--as I said, that will be somewhere around 50% for everyone--it's the level of difficulty of the questions that you get right. If you don't do well on the foundational kinds of questions, the program deduces that you are not ready to be licensed.
Everyone walks out of testing feeling somewhat beat up. How can you feel otherwise when, by the very design of the test, you missed 50% of the questions. The determining factor, then, is how high did your proficiency level go before you reached that 50% failure rate.
It's like giving people pages of math problems. Some will get half right at a seventh grade math level. Others will get half right at the level of a junior in high school. Everyone is getting 50%, but the difficulty of the problems decides who are the more adept students.
Hope that makes sense.
And I respect YOUR views, opinion, beliefs. Aren't nurses supposed to respect the autonomy of others? So shouldn't you respect mine?
I know that many vaccines work, but I also know that many do not. You can discredit the flu shot with research from the CDC. However, I still get the flu shot every year (mainly because I'm forced to at work).
People tend to take an extreme perspective on every issue. With vaccines you have one group that swears all vaccines are effective while another group wouldn't take the shot if their life depended on it (which sometimes it does). My advice would be to take all of the old school vaccines and do a lot of research before you let someone inject you with a vaccine that has been on the market for less than ten years.
Folks- The OP is not real.
Many of the posts on this forum are trolls. The good ones are clever and engaging, like some kind of new twist on nurses eating their young by a first time poster.
This one is just ridiculous.
OP- I call BS. You blew it with "medical license". I have never heard a nurse think they have a medical license. See you on your next troll with a new screen name.
politely, professionally, and firmly.
Because there aren't any.
I am not sure I understand the question.
It sounds like what you have in the syringe is a mixture of urine and water.
Is that what you are thinking of testing?
Sounds like you would enjoy living under a socialist regime. Let me know how that works out for you.
I would love to read research studies about the dangers of raising minimum wage.
I use the brand name of IV acetaminophen with some patients instead of telling them it's IV Tylenol. I want them to give it a chance to work instead of automatically assuming it won't work. If it doesn't work then we'll try something else. I also don't lie if they ask if it's Tylenol.
Right now I am in school for nursing and I am doing my preceptorship in an Emergency Department. I've noticed that lots of people come in for non emergent things, like a stubbed toe or vomiting one time, things like this. I'm wondering why these people aren't going to quick care, is this coming from being uninformed about what is an emergent situation or is insurance covering these trips? Maybe it has something to do with medicaid? I'm curious why the ER is the first place people are thinking to come for these things. I've had one ER visit in my whole life and a nurse told me that she knows someone who has had at least 70 ER visits in 6 months! That is crazy to me!
It may sound naive, but it is still true.
Don't take my word for it though.
Look at what happened to our economy when minimum wage was enough for a decent living. FDR was all about this. What happened to our economy when the minimum wage was a living wage, not a wage for pocket change?
We did all benefit.
A lot of people think that the economy of a nation runs the same way as personal finance. The idea is that every time you put money one place, it is taken from another place. That is the way personal finance works.
But that is not the way a national economy works. Economists have proven this, but since it is a political idea about which we all vote, and some people even become morally attached to their ideas, we don't make the best decisions for our economy.
Everyone benefits when money flows, rather than staying stagnant. Minimum wage as the wage of a decent living, fuels the flow of the economy.
I don't understand your question.
Minimum wage increases cause increases in skilled labor wages as well. Because if you can work at McDs for 15/hour why would you go to school to work for 15/hour? Minimum wage increases also generally improve the economy and increase employment. You have increased employment when minimum wage is enough to afford rent, utilities, food; because it is worth it for people to work.
This will not create short staffing in hospitals. CNAs will make more, and more people will stay in the job.
Minimum wage increase benefits everyone.
Advertise With Us