A Paradigm Shift in Nursing Practice

Nursing recognized as a profession has gained it awareness in our current culture somewhat piggybacking off the Women's Right movement. Even though many nurses are now male, the stigma associated with nursing has its roots attached to a time when women, whom comprised nursing, were thought of as hysterical, at worst, and not equal to a man, at best. Doctors by contrast, predominantly male, has commanded respect and paid well for that respect for years.

Updated:  

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE JUST A NURSE

JUST a nurse. I am JUST a nurse. No big deal, had I been more adventurous maybe I would have gone to medical school. These thoughts are the thoughts of many, including myself, which I have over heard for years, even prior to nursing school. It's actually sad when you think about it.

Nursing recognized as a profession has gained it awareness in our current culture somewhat piggybacking off the Women's Right movement. Even though many nurses are now male, the stigma associated with nursing has its roots attached to a time when women, whom comprised nursing, were thought of as hysterical, at worst, and not equal to a man, at best. Doctors by contrast, predominantly male, has commanded respect and paid well for that respect for years.

THE WORLD AS WE NOW KNOW IT

The world of nursing as we currently know it is complicated by supposed "Staff shortages", high nursing to patient ratios, lack of documentation for nursing interventions, problems with compliance to "Core Measures" or other Joint Commission regulations, deficits in inventory charging, poor attitude, and lack of ambition in many situations. This in turn creates extremely high turnover, million dollars in lawsuits, millions of dollars on Core Measure fall outs, and loss of thousands of dollars in inventory, difficulty for managers to make safe staffing assignments.

To combat many of these problems the nursing world has sought legislation to control nursing ratios at the detriment of no longer having nurses aids which help feed, bath, change bedding, toilet, and other similar tasks that take much time and attention. Their supposed rectification of the situation leads to more work for the nurses and a cut in positions for other healthcare members.

A POSSIBLE ANSWER

In a perfect world, which valued nursing similar to other types of therapists or physicians we would be able to bill patients for our services. This thought is nothing new and there are several reasons many have decided that right now this is not the answer.

So what is the answer? To me it's exquisitely simple.

It is common knowledge that a floor nurse is paid out of the room expense for the patient. But when considering the average room is at least $3000 and many times much higher and then multiplied by the five to eight patients the typical nurse must take care of its easy to see that $20- $30 dollars an hour is not much in the scheme of things.

However, taking from a rare specialty in nursing which pays a base hourly rate plus one hundred dollars per patient a day I ask myself why isn't this extended to the rest of profession? If a nurse was paid based on acuity and that acuity was calculated by the end of the shift per patient based on documentation into a computer system with an algorithm (which already exists) then the nurse would be motivated to properly document, become more efficient, give the nurse the ability to control how many patients they wanted with the incentive to accept more patients per shift. In theory, this would increase positive outcomes for the patient, diminish lawsuits and fall outs over Core Measures, and increase compliance with Joint Commission standards.

AN EXAMPLE

Based on acuity a typical day might consist of a patient that is waiting for discharge at some point that day, has nothing really wrong with them and only needs some basic nursing care. For this patient the nurse might get paid $80 per shift, but since the patient leaves a little past the middle of the shift the nurse would likely be paid $50. The nurse then admits a patient whom is more acute. The patient is a direct admit patient and requires and IV to be started, a urinary catheter to be placed. The nurse is spending two hours getting this patient admitted, stabilized, calling doctors, making sure the patient is ready to go to various departments for diagnostic testing and based on all the nursing interventions this patient is fairly acute. For a whole shift with this acuity the pay to the nurse would be possibly $120, but since this patient came toward the end of the shift maybe the nurse is paid $60 considering the amount of time and interventions that this patient required. The rest of this nurse's patients consist of a patient with several wounds that need to be addressed, another patient with tracheostomy requiring hourly suctioning and tracheostomy cleaning. Another patient has a feeding tube and is trying to get out of bed frequently, but has dementia and is unable to walk. Another couple of patients are requiring blood transfusion and yet another patient is relatively stable, but not ready for discharge. Each of these patients would be a different acuity based on the algorithm the nurse would be reimbursed differently for each patient, depending on her documentation. Let's say this nurse on average makes around$100-$150 per patient for 12 hours, but this determination is based on 24 hour equivalents.

For those nurses working in a procedural type arena, the pay reimbursement would be even simpler. The nurse would be paid based on a percentage of the cost for the procedure. I am not well versed in this type of nursing, so I wouldn't be able to extrapolate the price for different procedures, though that could also be taken into consideration.

ADVOCATING FOR THE PROFESSION

This type of pay reimbursement would give the power to the nurse to direct their own practice. A new nurse may only want to take 3- 5 patients that particular day, while a 20 year veteran might be able to handle 8 or 10 safely and efficiently. However, it would be the nurse's call based on where they felt comfortable and their pay would reflect this desire. The theory advocating for nursing control of practice would also not negatively penalize the nurse for taking more patients as the currently system does. If I get paid 'X' dollars an hour for the shift and it doesn't matter if I have three patients or ten, of course, I will opt for the latter. However, if I was going to get paid significantly more to take either a sicker patient or more stable patients I would be more enthusiastic about this assignment.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY

The first critique to this work will be that this type of philosophy is money oriented. I bet the first person to even say this will be a nurse. As nurses we can sometime perpetuate the cycle of professional disregard. And while thinking I would love to live in a land where the most important thing was taking care of my patients and making sure they had the best hospital experience possible and my direct contribution mean they got better faster.

Unfortunately, this current system does not cultivate this type of thinking and simply irradiates this type of idealism, disregarding it as a naive view point of a not-so-seasoned nurse. As much as each nurse may have come into this profession thinking they would make a world of change, reality is they are not given the tools needed for success.

Nurses are currently given all the responsibility and none of the resources to give "nursing book" quality of care. Think of it this way, a physician get to say how many patients they will take and how much they will charge. Society accepts this, may grumble a little, but still puts up with this situation. This theory would put the power back on the nurse to decide how much he/she is able to safely take on for one shift.

This theory is in no doubt a paradigm shift and it acknowledges that resistance will be met by hospital that does not want to lose profits. It is not asking that the patient pays more inherently. And to this end, when people will say it cannot be done because of the price to be paid, I would say, then why isn't this an obstacle for other professions that may only see the patient for a few minutes each day.

~ Written by Melissa Main, RN 2012

Feel free to share and comment. My ideas are fluid not set in stone.

You know, readers decide in the first few sentences whether or not they will continue to read a post. This is what I was trying to say - I did not go further due to the errors in the beginning. The "hook" was not there for me. Professionals need to keep this in mind when publishing something for all to read. I have no intention of offering to edit a post for someone who is trying to convince me of an idea or concept. I'm sure the discussion is a valid one - that was not the point of my post.

Specializes in emergency, neuroscience and neurosurg..
Socialised medicine has it own problems, obviously, higher taxes being one aspect. My question is how does your nursing management recognise the impact of the fee systems upon nursing staff and are there supportive approaches for the nurses employed there

As a nurse in a non- socialized medicine socieity/country I can only speak to how that system is run. One of the primary components facing nursing here (USA) is lack of recognition so to speak for nursing care and nurses. Nursing care is "built in" to other charges on the facility bill. That is part of the reason that Tylenol is $40 a pill, or other medications/services are greatly inflated. Most systems now do not take acuity into account period when making decisions regarding staffing/ productivity. It is all about the numbers. And yes census should be a part of the algorithm, but not the entire algorithm. As an ED nurse we are instructed to "down-staff" periodically throughout a 24 hr period according to census or number of patients seen. The C-suite has determined that productivity should remain above 90% at all times and preferably more than 95%. The problem with this rationale is it doesn't take into account the acuity or severity of the patients being cared for. If a minimal number of patients are seen but are critical care in nature ( i.e. STEMI, trauma, sepsis, post- cardiac arrest, multiple critical care drips, etc, etc.) we are still expected to meet the same productivity guidelines. In addition, experience levels of staff are not factored into the algorithm either. It is much easier to care for those patients with less staff if most nurses are experienced. This is rarely the case. Many times you may find yourself as the only experienced nurse on shift.

So, it is a multi-faceted problem and a worthwhile discussion. While I am not sure how I think/stand regarding a strictly pay for services program for nursing there does need to be a change somewhere. The patients should see a charge for nursing care reflected in their bill. Nursing provides 90% or more of all care given to patients and yet is the only profession not represented in the billing. Every year our profession is voted "the most trusted profession" by the public, shouldn't they then know exactly how much of their care is attributed to that profession? Hospitals and other facilities have to acknowledge what nurses do, as well as consider that not all patients are created equal. Physicians do bill extra for critical care and that should be considered for nursing as well, in billing and other determinants.

We have many discussions and decisions that HAVE to be made for our profession but it is time WE THE NURSES started making them instead of others and then trying to change the decisions or undo them.. Be proactive not reactive.

ya, we need less documentation, not more...that's where I stopped reading and had to disagree with the post.

I disagree with one point made by the PP. Chronic care is not devalued. In fact, from my own job offers, those LTC/LTAC/SNF jobs I have had or was offered paid MORE than the hospital job!I would rather have my care based on CPT code than patient surveys!!Fact is that too many Americans have been taught that outcome is the goal...not equal opportunity but equal outcome....translated medically that it isn't equal opportunity for good nursing care but better outcomes for the patient. Doctors are not Gods and they cannot always predict who will or will not survive. They cannot predict one head injury outcome over another...it is 'wait and see'. How many stories have we heard where a patient wasn't expected to survive but did or vice versa.How do we as nurses begin to get the world to realize our true value? It will never come from becoming medical waitresses. As a career transitioner, I had NO concept of all the knowledge that a nurse needs to pass the NCLEX and then to provide care. Somehow, some way we need to get the general public to know that we are not just the doctor's handmaidens. Honestly, the silliest, but most effective way would be proper nurse based drama shows. As long as the public sees nurses behind the desk as the station gossiping about nothing....then see the doctor do all the procedures that are the nurses area of practice, they will NEVER see our value.
Exactly what I have been saying all along. We should be friends. :)

Simply love this idea !! Will never happen but your point is well stated. I would add one more radical idea. Since false allegations against nurses for drug diversion is pandemic ,Hospitals should be required to have only designated Nurses pass out Narcotics on each floor each shift. Those Nurses should be randomly drug tested per a prescribed schedule. This would give less opportunity for retaliation against nurses the Manager simply does not like and deframation of character.

Yea... I'd be much happier with a simple change like nurses in certain specialities making more than others. Some CCRN nurse working in a high acuity critical care unit managing things like CRRT, ballon pumps, EVDs, titrating 10+ drips etc should be componsated much higher than the average med surg or tele nurse. The knowledge needed to be a strong nurse in certain units varies so greatly, yet in most hospitals every nurse makes about the same. If there needs to be some extra education requirements to have a "degree" in these specialties for nursing so be it. The gross lack of compensation between knowledge/training in certain types of nursing is the main reason I left for advanced practice. Had I stayed bedside, I was leaving critical care for something much easier and less stressful where I could have made the same money.

And the main problem with nursing as a profession is the education. Nursing doesn't get the respect it deserves because nursing school is fairly easy to get through. School needs to be harder and the weak students need to be weeded out. There are way too many licensed nurses who literally just follow orders regardless and don't have the knowledge to think critically or have any real foundation with pharm/patho. The strongest nurses didn't get that way in nursing school, they got there on the job. To be completely honest undergraduate programs are a joke for the most part.

A major problem with proposals like this is that they fail to recognize that fee-for-service is one of the single greatest contributors to increased healthcare cost and decreased quality of care. I do realize that having a dollar amount attached to the specific care one provides (and thereby qualifying and legitimizing its values) is inherently attractive. But, as the modern history of healthcare can tell us, this approach leads to perverse incentives that, among other things, has caused a dramatic shortage in primary care and mental health, led to overuse of expensive and invasive medical care, and resulted in one of the poorest quality of care in the developed world. Hardly a model we want to want to perpetuate much less expand. Another major flaw with this approach is that nursing care in fundamentally nonquantifiable. What constitutes something like monitoring for adverse effects of a medication and how much is that worth? As all nurses with any experience know, the value of quality nursing care is less what we do and much more know we know.

Just as we have seen with physicians, nurses are going to flock to the specialties that are intervention/procedure heavy and away from those that require expert monitoring and unglamorous but vitally important nursing care including things like educating patients/family and psychosocial care. Long-term care nurses would not only have to cover massive amounts of patients to make a comparable income but are also going to be seen as less valuable because the work they do would literally be less valuable (in a strictly financial sense). Physicians, thanks to fee-for-service, now see a massive range in earning potential based on specialty conservatively estimated at 250% (from $199,000 for public health and preventative medicine to $501,000 for plastic surgery) which directly oppose where our priorities in healthcare should be.

Rather than imply that all healthcare professionals are susceptible to corruption when their income is at stake, consider, as Dr. Steffie Woolhandler has pointed out, that unconscious influences are likely to take a toll. She gives the example of a cardiologist doing a cath. She or he notices a partially occluded artery. All the research suggests that the best course of action is to pull the catheter and start the patient on lifestyle interventions especially diet and exercise. However, the cardiologists can put in a stent in about 90 seconds and make an extra $5000. Human nature, she suggests, says that most people would place the stent.

While this example isn't directly applicable to nursing, consider something like medications. If a nurse can take home more money for every drug she or he pushes, are we likely to see an increase in the use of PRN medications, requesting orders for medications rather than nonpharmacological options, or questioning orders that verge on polypharmacy? Again, I'm not suggesting nurses, by and large, are going to start drugging patients into oblivion just to make an extra buck but I am suggesting that a system like this further creates incentives in opposition to the best interests of the patient (and the system as a whole).

Let me suggest a far simpler and, I would contend, far more likely successful approach. As you pointed out, basic nursing care is now included in the daily rate for hospitalization and, therefore, is lumped in with everything from building maintenance to office supplies. When facilities want to reduce costs, nursing care is just a line item like the toner and water bill. In the same way a hospital might reduce cost by buying cheaper or fewer linens, they look at increasing nursing ratios and/or decreasing staffing the same way. By simply splitting the reimbursement for nursing care from the miscellanea, there would be a clear and specific value attached to nursing care. This value could be on a tiered scale where ICU and active laboring nursing care might be at a higher rate, subacute might be lower. Facilities would be required to spend reimbursement for nursing care on nursing expenses (salary and benefits) so the money isn't going to the new water feature in the lobby or valet parking. Also, instead of legally mandating nurse: patient ratios, hospitals would now have a financial incentive to staff appropriately. Is it perfect? Not at all. Are there still ways to avoid doing the right thing? Sure. But they are far fewer and it would require much more effort to justify screwing over the floor nurse.