sunkissed75 7,065 Views
Joined Mar 21, '09.
sunkissed75 is a Full-time Mom and PSW (similar to a CNA).
Posts: 281 (31% Liked)
I don't work with adults because I hate what they do to themselves and I don't like the intimacy with their bodies.
I used to work with Peds, but I had trouble with how they hated me and how varied their diagnoses were. Toddlers hated me at the door. I had to wake up a sweet 6yr old at midnight to restart her IV. I took care of kids with the WIERDEST disorders: Spinal Muscle Atrophy, Maple Syrup Urine Disease, Glycogen storage disease, Epidermolysis bullosa...plus your dehydrated kids, post-ops and former preemies on chronic vents.
Now I do NICU. I am not embarassed to examine and care for their bodies. They don't hate me: I can poke them for an IV and then comfort them. There are a limited number of things that can go wrong with new babies: and I can know them WELL! I don't know a little about a lot of things, but I know a LOT about a few things...I work better that way.
I don't work in a hospital because I feel those gentle gray walls closing in on me and bleeding the life right out of me. Also, I was tired of working everyday trying to get patients to do things they didn't want to, so they could be discharged to a nursing home they hated, only to come back in sicker than ever and start the process over.
I work in hospice because of the autonomy, because somedays, like today, I get paid to drive 100 miles to meet a real cowboy from the past who has prostate cancer but is pretty sure he has another 10 years left, and because I truly work with an interdisciplinary team (including the doc) that are working to do what is best for the pt's comfort. And I don't have to worry about whether my pt's are seeking drugs.
I work with seniors because I genuinely enjoy them, especially my dementia and psych residents. It's a challenge sometimes, but there are many misconceptions about the elderly.
I also love love the OR and PACU. Very interesting, clean, organized, one pt at a time. I hope to return someday.
I would never want to work pediatrics. I don't like other people's children all that much. Just never had an interest in peds. I also wouldn't want to work Emerg. Had a few shifts as a student, and I'm not an Adrenalin junkie. No interest in starting IVs or engaging in code situations every shift.
I DON'T do Med/Surg because all those sicker-by-the-day med patients and those straight-from-the-ER trauma patients who by rights should have gone to ICU were not getting the care from me that they deserved. Not due to my inadequacies but because no one nurse could keep up with the pace of the admits/discharges and deliver adequate, let alone above-average care.
I DO work in a pre-op setting now, taking pre-op histories/assessments over the phone because: I'm good at looking at both the big picture and the nit-picky details. I evaluate a patient's readiness for surgery and work to remedy any deficiences. I get off on lowering my facility's day-of-surgery cancellation rate.
I remember the patient who came in like that and we couldn't get the boots off his feet. Somebody had a bright idea and got out the leg bucket (don't ask!) some time later the leg was lifted out and the foot stayed in the boot at the bottom of the bucket. Then the maggots floated to the top...
I am calm still i needed to express what i think of this post , see you right she is here to vent but read in between lines you will see i mean . Although i am ok with her being frustrated because she feels cheated on her learning she went wrong when talking about "Lpn"" Cna" duties and her shadowing an Lpn and all that OMG did she really need to put it that way ? trust me i worked under an RN BSN once and she was full of herself reminding everyone on the floor including family members coming to visit their loved one , of her BSN title Yet her simple nursing basic skills was pitiful ,she was the kind we call book smart and will shake and postpone a simple task when it come to hand on practical care until someone else will come to her rescue .
I am sure you understand what i am reffereing to but you want to encourage the original post i dn't think that right because she having her nose up talking about " I BSN student " did you read that line ??????what does that say to you ?
It leaves out all new grads who do not qualify for unemployment having never been able to even work as a nurse
There's a specific form for nursing shoes and footwear???
You have no need to rephrase your statement.
There is a parental right that is not only in jeopardy, it has been taken away. That is the right of parents of 12-17 year olds to refuse a medical treatment they don't believe necessary or don't desire for their child.
Regardless of the opinions of other posters, there are risks to the HPV vaccine that some reasonable and informed parents may believe are not out-weighed by it's questionable benefits, especially given that there is no long term data for this vaccine. Unfortunately, it is easy to sway a 12 year old by presenting one-sided information regarding this vaccine, or any medical procedure. They don't have the critical thinking skills and knowledge that their parents have, and are likely to consent to something they don't fully understand. That is why minors are not allowed to sign legal contracts. Are we to believe that they have some accelerated ability to reason and consent in regards to medical treatment, while we recognize their inability to do so in every other aspect of their lives?
It is not only a parent's right to weigh risks and benefits in determining medical treatment for their minor children, it is their sacred responsibility.
can you point to a poster here who has stated that STD treatment for minors without parental consent is perfectly OK? I haven't been able to find one.
*** What parental right is in jeopardy?
Naturally, until their (parents) beliefs cause harm to the child
Where I work Medicare pts get the cadillac treatment. Basically everything. Tests, drugs, Xrays, therapy. Imagine PT for someone who hasn't walked in 6 months. Doctors order it because it will be reimbursed. Pts and families go along with the doc because...they don't have to pay for it.
Would raising the age force pts and families to more closely consider cost, since they will be responsible for a larger portion of it? WOuld that be where the savings would come from?
There are many good posts here about end-of-life issues and it is a really good thing to discuss openly throughout the country. Sad to say, it will have to come from the liberal side of the country.....I say this because if a conservative says it, they get accused of trying to kill granny.....whereas liberals are perceived as "more compassionate" and folks may start to listen.
Please put aside the class warfare stuff because I have shown how once divided among employees, that CEO's total would only add peanuts to the lower class's check.....
Where many social ideals have collapsed is in the realm of what my mom always called "unintended consequences". Not to mention her fav phrase of "the road to he// was paved with good intentions".
When The Great Society began, the average person would not live long enough to receive SS or Medicare. There were over 159 persons paying in for every 1 person receiving benefits. Now there is only 2.9. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html ) For a time, the extra sat in a fund....that eventually lawmakers of BOTH political spectrums raided the account believing there would always be more coming in.
As we continued to grow as a country, we decided that we should not have as many children (less future workers) and we became very scientifically adept - generating ever increasing lifespans.
So, lets back up time for a bit.....
Before social government policies took hold (throughout the world, not just here), a person expected to work until they died. It was part of life and living. No one really thought of "retirement". That is a fairly recent historical development. We also gave birth at home since it was a natural process. People died because it was their time.
When we took the steps to provide for these "unproductive" years, we started this ball rolling. If we modeled todays eligibility against expected lifespan, we wouldn't qualify until our 70s. The major issue is we have MORE folks receiving, receiving longer than originally planned for and an insufficient number of workers paying in! That is the unintended consequence. We as a people cannot afford to keep this up.
Although I have NO problems with capitalism, as a healthcare worker (new to the field), I am beginning to see where profit based hospitals are an entirely different animal. The last LTAC/SNF where I worked was for-profit. Since 99% of their income was government, they #1 profit on the backs of tax payers and #2 to profit, they short the workers and the patient. [Note: I see the problem begins because as youths, many see 'government' money as a 'freebie' and 'not hurting anyone'. The reality is, that one day, you run out of other people money! (taxes)]
I think we DO need to raise the age.....but, incrementally. You don't take someone who now relies on Medicare and say sorry you gotta wait. You start increasing it so they have a chance to hold on to what they have for another year or two before they get Medicare.
I am 49 and on the cusp of the end of the baby boomer years. I am in the class of folks that would be affected by such a change. I am starting my new nursing career with no intention of going into retirement for another 15 - 20 years. Fully informed now and I have plenty of time to plan for the future.
You wanna fix health care (hospital costs)? make it so that the CEO's total compensation package can't exceed 100x the cost of the lowest paid person (and word it so they can't just contract out the work, either) at the hospital. You wanna pay a CEO 40 million bucks, you pay the cleaning guy 400,000 bucks. WHA? That's too much for a cleaning guy? No, honey, that's too much for a CEO.
Cap malpractice to actual cost of care and loss of income of patient. And then take the doc's freakin' license so he can't skip over the state line and do it to someone else..
If a person comes to the ER for something non-emergency, like an earache or a toothache (never seen dentistry performed in the hospital), take the cost of the visit out of their check. (I'm not talking trauma, I'm talking the person who's tooth has hurt for 3 months and decides at 4 am on a Saturday to go to the ER).
If a person is in the ER more than 1x per month, figure out why and fix it. If it's substance abuse, they either go to rehab or can't come back for "drunk and done fell over." If it's someone with endstage everything, they need to go on hospice and not end up being tortured their last weeks in an ICU when nothing's going to change the outcome.
All of this comes down to giving the patient and families realistic expectations. And since a lot of the docs I work with absolutely stink at end of life / chronic disease issues, this isn't going to get fixed, the system's going to break, more hospitals will close. It's a good thing we're nurses, because we may well be the "healthcare system" for our families...the only one they can afford.
Welcome to the fall of Rome, part 2..
To be honest, I think the public cares a lot less than ALL of the doctors think they do. When they or are a loved one are sick, they want treatment and they'll take it from the best source available to them regardless of what they call themselves.
Advertise With Us