article about nursing in US News
- 0Jul 22, '03 by oramar GuideIt is called..Getting Nurses Back on Board.
It is quite interesting but I fear some will find it upsetting. It is a separate article from the ..Exclusive Rankings of Top Medical Care...article that is in same issue. The nurse article talks about nurse patient ratios but the Top Medical Care article does not. I can't see why you would discuss top medical care and nursing issues in two different articles like they were unrelated issues. To me they are the same issue. Another thing that might upset some people is that they go into great detail about how Methodist Hospital in Houston ended it's nursing shortage. Sounds to me like they kinda painted agency nurses into a corner to get them on board.Last edit by NRSKarenRN on Jul 22, '03
- 0Jul 22, '03 by NRSKarenRN AdminSee too "Nurses :The clues to quality care"
America's Best Hospitals:
First time I've seen nurse ratios included----vary widely here in top hospitals. KarenLast edit by NRSKarenRN on Jul 23, '03
- 0Jul 22, '03 by NRSKarenRN AdminUpdate on Duke Transplant Failure:
One mistake didn't kill her–the organ donor system was fatally flawed Jesica's story
- 0Jul 24, '03 by ainzWhat about the part that says each unit was assigned a medical director so nursing supervisors would have an advocate to the "larger organization." What a slap in the face. Nurses need a doctor to advocate for them to administration. Nurses run the hospital and don't even realize it.
Also there is a comment about a lack of data to show that having regular staff nurses as opposed to outside help (agency nurses, etc.) improves patient outcomes.
WHERE IS THE NURSING RESEARCH, DONE BY NURSES, TO PROVE THAT NURSES IMPACT PATIENT CARE IN A POSITIVE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????
What is with us nurses???? Are we blind to what is going on??? Are we paralyzed by who-knows-what????? Where is our nursing leadership??? Where are the PhD's who teach about how important nursing research is and here we are needing it desperately to ensure the survival of our profession and where is the research??!!
- 0Jul 24, '03 by roxannekkbWhere are the PhD's who teach about how important nursing research is and here we are needing it desperately to ensure the survival of our profession and where is the research??!!
They're too busy worrying about nursing image in the media, and "strategies" to start indoctrinating kindergarten students on the wonders of a nursing career. Real issues and solutions escape them.
- 0Jul 25, '03 by caroladybelleDo they mention those of us that would be regular staff, except we got treated with such incredible abuse as staffers that we left. And found that being agency/travelers had many more advantages to it.
Nah, that couldn't show up in print.
Could they mention the thousands of Nurses (especially in Canada) that would love to be classed as "full time" and frequently work the hours of full timers, but are classed as part time, so that benefits do not have to be paid?
Why, hospitals/med practices wouldn't do that, would they?
And talking about nurses working in unfamiliar surroundings, being handicapped...what about floating... or even, better swing shifting?
Why couldn't they address things of that nature?
- 0Jul 26, '03 by -jtI saw that article a few days ago. I was wondering why they felt they needed a medical director to plead the nurses case to the higher ups if the hospital is so committed to really including the nurses. What do they need the doctor to be the middle man for? Why is he/she needed to run interference between the nurses & the executive suite? Thats a little contradictory to the whole premise of recognizing the RNs voice, isnt it? And the part where the nurse administrators said that it is better to have staff rather than regular temps was interesting. Where is their data proving that? Whats the difference between an RN that is there regularly getting paid staff salary and the RN that is there regularly getting paid agency rates? They both know the place and the pts. The only difference is just the paycheck.
All of the nurse research that proves a direct link between RNs and patient outcomes that have been published in all those big journals recently said RNs made the difference in quality pt care and better outcomes. None of them said they had to be STAFF RNs to make the difference. Where is the hospitals data proving that making a regular temp nurse a staff RN improved the quality of the pt care? Its still the same nurse doing the same job - just for less money, so how could the quality change all of the sudden? I think the only thing that changed was the hospitals over-head cost. That hospital held a gun to those nurses heads and told them come on staff for less money or dont work here at all. What choice did they have? I hope they send their side of the story to that newspaper.Last edit by -jt on Jul 26, '03
- 0Sep 7, '03 by gojackTo 'get me back on board as a nurse', I want universal coverage for me and my health care co-workers. How sorry our US medical system is when many caregivers themselves lack health care coverage, along with their neighbors,family, and friends being without it, too!
There is a better article on Znet dated Sept 6.... titled
"Health vs Profits". Below is the beginning of the article....
"Like milk and coke, healthcare and the profit motive just shouldn’t be mixed.
The American health system demonstrates just how expensive, unjust and inefficient capitalist medicine is.
Two weeks ago the New England Journal of Medicine released more data that confirms what has already been well documented: for-profit insurance and hospitals are a waste of money. The data shows that, adjusting for population, the U.S. spends $209 billion more every year on extra administrative costs than the Canadian single-payer (government) insurance system. This is mostly because multiple insurers need to have their own bureaucracy and because of advertising expenses. The study didn’t even take into account the additional, 10 to 15 per cent of revenue that is siphoned off as profit for insurance companies and profit-oriented hospitals.
(As an aside, Canada’s two largest circulating newspapers, the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, both had full articles and the Star even had an editorial on the study. On the other hand, the N.Y. Times had no mention of it, nor could I find anything on the websites of the L.A. Times or San Francisco Chronicle, while USA Today had a small blurb in its business section and the Boston Globe [the city of publication] had an article in its business section. I guess the corporate press considered the information to be either irrelevant or only of interest to the business community.).
The authors of the study believe this extra money is enough to insure the 60 million U.S. residents who find themselves uninsured at some point every year.
This is not much of a surprise considering that, according to the Globe and Mail, "[Canadian] governments spent 7 per cent of GDP on health in 2001, while American governments spent 6.7 per cent.” (04/21/03). Basically, Canadian and American governments spend the same amount on health even though in Canada unlike the U.S, the state provides universal health coverage.........."