Latest Likes For BostonFNP

Latest Likes For BostonFNP

BostonFNP Moderator 34,202 Views

Joined Apr 4, '11 - from 'Northshore, MA'. BostonFNP is a Primary Care. Posts: 4,064 (58% Liked) Likes: 9,275

Sorted By Last Like Received (Max 500)
  • May 27

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    P.S. Any other study I've seen referenced the Aiken study and even cited it in their sources. Talk about regurgitation! The ION made its recommendations solely based on the "Faiken" study. Because that's exactly what it is.
    That's because it is a landmark study. You would cite it no matter if you were supporting or refuting it. You have never published anything I assume.

  • May 27

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    There was no scientific process here. Just a group of self-serving academic lackeys who got a bucket load of funding and nice bonuses to boot to push the agenda of the very people and institutions backing and supporting them.
    What bonuses? Cite your sources.


    Quote from avengingspirit1
    The authors know this which is why they refused to return a call from a major news network inquiring about it. You will not see a refuting study mentioned in any nursing publication because there is no money to made that way and most of those publications make a lot money selling advertising to four year schools.
    The for-profit schools making all the "money" are often associate programs, so there should be plenty of cash available. Please, cite the "four year schools" that have taken out advertisements in JAMA.

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    The only thing I will agree in this "study" is that ones chances of survival are probably better having surgery in a hospital with more board certified surgeons. But as far as proving people fare better in hospitals with more BSNs - garbage. You do what you feel you must do and I will do the same
    So you are willing to cherry pick data from a "garbage study" huh? You have very eloquently defined pseudoscience: you take your opinion and search out only data that supports it. And at the same time you are accusing others of the same....

  • May 27

    You have made a big investment, don't shortchange it. You first year in practice is very important and shouldn't (IMHO) be mixed with also trying to learn a completely different role.

  • May 27

    Quote from Susie2310
    Knowing what I know about my family member's medical condition etc., it was entirely appropriate for my family member to be admitted as an inpatient, and this was clear by the treatment the hospitalists provided. Why make such a comment when you know nothing about our situation?
    How long have you been a ED physician?

    That's the problem with trying to judge medical negligence by "standard of care": it doesn't matter what you know, or I know, or even what the attending hospital knows, standard of care is determined by what a reasonable provider in the same scenario would have done (in this case what another ED physician would have done). In simple terms it's what the bare minimum is and that's not a good way to decide, as is evidenced by what your family member went through.

  • May 27

    Quote from Susie2310
    Having a lawyer present would make nurses/physicians attentive to ensuring the care they provide meets the Standards of Care and that their charting truthfully reflects the care they have actually given. I'm pretty sure if a lawyer had been present watching the ER physician preparing to discharge my family member (who had previously been discharged from a hospital stay within the last 30 days) who had sepsis and who required three days of inpatient care with antibiotics and IV fluids (the physician fortunately changed their mind after they had traumatized us by talking about discharging my family member home to receive antibiotics and had even started the discharge paperwork, and admitted my family member to a monitored unit), that the lawyer would have whispered CMS and EMTALA in the physician's ear.

    Profit, profit, profit. Volume of patients. Avoiding 30 day readmission penalties. And so on, and so on.
    Sure we can have a lawyer at the bedside and everyone can get full-body CT scans for every complaint, I mean why not, already 30-50% of CT scans performed are medically unnecessary and use has risen to over $100 billion in cost. Then in another few decades we can have other lawyers suing the current lawyers over the increase in cancer rates.

    Better yet, why not leave the lawyers out and just let every patient dictate their own plan of care? You have a cut toe, what would you like? An MRI? Sure thing. Then no one is to blame right? Except for the fact higher patient satisfaction scores are associated with higher M&M.

    You realize even in the situation you described, discharging your family member may have very well met the standard of care. It's a terribly inaccurate measure of medical negligence.

    Let providers practice the way they were trained to rather than by the way a lawyer, or patient, or administrator thinks they should.

  • May 27

    Quote from Susie2310
    Knowing what I know about my family member's medical condition etc., it was entirely appropriate for my family member to be admitted as an inpatient, and this was clear by the treatment the hospitalists provided. Why make such a comment when you know nothing about our situation?
    How long have you been a ED physician?

    That's the problem with trying to judge medical negligence by "standard of care": it doesn't matter what you know, or I know, or even what the attending hospital knows, standard of care is determined by what a reasonable provider in the same scenario would have done (in this case what another ED physician would have done). In simple terms it's what the bare minimum is and that's not a good way to decide, as is evidenced by what your family member went through.

  • May 27

    Quote from Susie2310
    Having a lawyer present would make nurses/physicians attentive to ensuring the care they provide meets the Standards of Care and that their charting truthfully reflects the care they have actually given. I'm pretty sure if a lawyer had been present watching the ER physician preparing to discharge my family member (who had previously been discharged from a hospital stay within the last 30 days) who had sepsis and who required three days of inpatient care with antibiotics and IV fluids (the physician fortunately changed their mind after they had traumatized us by talking about discharging my family member home to receive antibiotics and had even started the discharge paperwork, and admitted my family member to a monitored unit), that the lawyer would have whispered CMS and EMTALA in the physician's ear.

    Profit, profit, profit. Volume of patients. Avoiding 30 day readmission penalties. And so on, and so on.
    Sure we can have a lawyer at the bedside and everyone can get full-body CT scans for every complaint, I mean why not, already 30-50% of CT scans performed are medically unnecessary and use has risen to over $100 billion in cost. Then in another few decades we can have other lawyers suing the current lawyers over the increase in cancer rates.

    Better yet, why not leave the lawyers out and just let every patient dictate their own plan of care? You have a cut toe, what would you like? An MRI? Sure thing. Then no one is to blame right? Except for the fact higher patient satisfaction scores are associated with higher M&M.

    You realize even in the situation you described, discharging your family member may have very well met the standard of care. It's a terribly inaccurate measure of medical negligence.

    Let providers practice the way they were trained to rather than by the way a lawyer, or patient, or administrator thinks they should.

  • May 26

    Quote from Susie2310
    Knowing what I know about my family member's medical condition etc., it was entirely appropriate for my family member to be admitted as an inpatient, and this was clear by the treatment the hospitalists provided. Why make such a comment when you know nothing about our situation?
    How long have you been a ED physician?

    That's the problem with trying to judge medical negligence by "standard of care": it doesn't matter what you know, or I know, or even what the attending hospital knows, standard of care is determined by what a reasonable provider in the same scenario would have done (in this case what another ED physician would have done). In simple terms it's what the bare minimum is and that's not a good way to decide, as is evidenced by what your family member went through.

  • May 26

    Quote from Susie2310
    Having a lawyer present would make nurses/physicians attentive to ensuring the care they provide meets the Standards of Care and that their charting truthfully reflects the care they have actually given. I'm pretty sure if a lawyer had been present watching the ER physician preparing to discharge my family member (who had previously been discharged from a hospital stay within the last 30 days) who had sepsis and who required three days of inpatient care with antibiotics and IV fluids (the physician fortunately changed their mind after they had traumatized us by talking about discharging my family member home to receive antibiotics and had even started the discharge paperwork, and admitted my family member to a monitored unit), that the lawyer would have whispered CMS and EMTALA in the physician's ear.

    Profit, profit, profit. Volume of patients. Avoiding 30 day readmission penalties. And so on, and so on.
    Sure we can have a lawyer at the bedside and everyone can get full-body CT scans for every complaint, I mean why not, already 30-50% of CT scans performed are medically unnecessary and use has risen to over $100 billion in cost. Then in another few decades we can have other lawyers suing the current lawyers over the increase in cancer rates.

    Better yet, why not leave the lawyers out and just let every patient dictate their own plan of care? You have a cut toe, what would you like? An MRI? Sure thing. Then no one is to blame right? Except for the fact higher patient satisfaction scores are associated with higher M&M.

    You realize even in the situation you described, discharging your family member may have very well met the standard of care. It's a terribly inaccurate measure of medical negligence.

    Let providers practice the way they were trained to rather than by the way a lawyer, or patient, or administrator thinks they should.

  • May 26

    Quote from Susie2310
    Having a lawyer present would make nurses/physicians attentive to ensuring the care they provide meets the Standards of Care and that their charting truthfully reflects the care they have actually given. I'm pretty sure if a lawyer had been present watching the ER physician preparing to discharge my family member (who had previously been discharged from a hospital stay within the last 30 days) who had sepsis and who required three days of inpatient care with antibiotics and IV fluids (the physician fortunately changed their mind after they had traumatized us by talking about discharging my family member home to receive antibiotics and had even started the discharge paperwork, and admitted my family member to a monitored unit), that the lawyer would have whispered CMS and EMTALA in the physician's ear.

    Profit, profit, profit. Volume of patients. Avoiding 30 day readmission penalties. And so on, and so on.
    Sure we can have a lawyer at the bedside and everyone can get full-body CT scans for every complaint, I mean why not, already 30-50% of CT scans performed are medically unnecessary and use has risen to over $100 billion in cost. Then in another few decades we can have other lawyers suing the current lawyers over the increase in cancer rates.

    Better yet, why not leave the lawyers out and just let every patient dictate their own plan of care? You have a cut toe, what would you like? An MRI? Sure thing. Then no one is to blame right? Except for the fact higher patient satisfaction scores are associated with higher M&M.

    You realize even in the situation you described, discharging your family member may have very well met the standard of care. It's a terribly inaccurate measure of medical negligence.

    Let providers practice the way they were trained to rather than by the way a lawyer, or patient, or administrator thinks they should.

  • May 26

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    P.S. Any other study I've seen referenced the Aiken study and even cited it in their sources. Talk about regurgitation! The ION made its recommendations solely based on the "Faiken" study. Because that's exactly what it is.
    That's because it is a landmark study. You would cite it no matter if you were supporting or refuting it. You have never published anything I assume.

  • May 26

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    There was no scientific process here. Just a group of self-serving academic lackeys who got a bucket load of funding and nice bonuses to boot to push the agenda of the very people and institutions backing and supporting them.
    What bonuses? Cite your sources.


    Quote from avengingspirit1
    The authors know this which is why they refused to return a call from a major news network inquiring about it. You will not see a refuting study mentioned in any nursing publication because there is no money to made that way and most of those publications make a lot money selling advertising to four year schools.
    The for-profit schools making all the "money" are often associate programs, so there should be plenty of cash available. Please, cite the "four year schools" that have taken out advertisements in JAMA.

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    The only thing I will agree in this "study" is that ones chances of survival are probably better having surgery in a hospital with more board certified surgeons. But as far as proving people fare better in hospitals with more BSNs - garbage. You do what you feel you must do and I will do the same
    So you are willing to cherry pick data from a "garbage study" huh? You have very eloquently defined pseudoscience: you take your opinion and search out only data that supports it. And at the same time you are accusing others of the same....

  • May 26

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    P.S. Any other study I've seen referenced the Aiken study and even cited it in their sources. Talk about regurgitation! The ION made its recommendations solely based on the "Faiken" study. Because that's exactly what it is.
    That's because it is a landmark study. You would cite it no matter if you were supporting or refuting it. You have never published anything I assume.

  • May 26

    You have made a big investment, don't shortchange it. You first year in practice is very important and shouldn't (IMHO) be mixed with also trying to learn a completely different role.

  • May 26

    Quote from avengingspirit1
    You can keep on trying to defend this garbage just like the AACN who supported and backed this nonsense for obvious reasons, but the truth is coming out. I contacted a popular radio station who briefly talked about the topic to try to get the issue pushed on-air again.
    I am not really defending anything other than the scientific process; these studies don't apply to me and I don't have any "horse in the race" so-to-speak. If a quality study comes along to refute it then my position would change. You can call it "garbage" and regurgitate the objections of the N-OADN (talk about bias) but until there is a study published that refutes it, you are spurting only your personal opinion supported by anecdotes.

    Good luck with that, I will be waiting to hear about it in the news. If some for-profits get shut down along the way, that's a bonus to everyone.

    All studies have flaws, I don't particularly love the 2003 Aiken study for an entirely different reason, but this has been replicated over and over in multinational studies by different authors using different study designs.


close
close