Agency Nursing vs Staff Nursing

Q. · Apr 21, 2002

originally posted by skm-nursiepooh
...but by you mentioning the article, you've suggested that a correlation was a causation...hence all of the agency nurses rebuttals against the article or against what it suggests. but if your intention wasn't to make the article suggest the correlation as causation, why then even mention the article in the first place??? just an observation ...don't take this post or the other rebuttals personally...it's just the subject matter that a lot of the posters object to. :blushkiss

i don't see how my referencing an article finding, which clearly suggests correlation, somehow translates to causation, by my mere citation. you give me waaayyy to much credit on my abilities.

whether causation exists or not, it doesn't dismiss the importance and significance of correlation, which can lead to the study being repeated to identify causation if it exists.

our team used these findings in our debate and were appropriate to use to argue against agency nurse use; i see no reason to find that i shouldn't mention them here. :confused:

fadingyouth · Apr 21, 2002

Perhaps instead of "blaming", we should look at all the positive things that agency nurses do. Let's think about an unique thing called " support".

Some agency nurses do become involved, just not a part of the political system. Once known and respected for your abilities it is highly probable that you will be asked to assist with peer orientation.

Allow me to reiterate that some agency nurses are the staff once contractual agreements are reached. In most cases we, constrained by protocols, are more aware of the do 's and don's.

We strive harder because no one wants to see or hear DNR-

do not return- on their profile.

In the long run it is up to each nurse to use universal precautions, abide by the hospital protocols, and utilize knowledge and caution.

BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!

**SKM-NURSIEPOOH, BSN, RN** · Apr 21, 2002

originally posted by susy k
...i don't see how my referencing an article finding, which clearly suggests correlation, somehow translates to causation, by my mere citation. you give me waaayyy to much credit on my abilities.

whether causation exists or not, it doesn't dismiss the importance and significance of correlation, which can lead to the study being repeated to identify causation if it exists.

our team used these findings in our debate and were appropriate to use to argue against agency nurse use; i see no reason to find that i shouldn't mention them here.

...nor am i discrediting you either...i just wanted you to be aware that by mentioning the article, it somehow validates that a lot of problems in hospitals stem from using agency nurses...as if they're a direct cause for many of the problems that this particular article states.

but if your original premise is that using agency nurses is placing a band-aid or a "quick fix" to the system due to other reasons such as the nursing shortage, no political commitment of them, & or no involvement with the structure of the hospital system...then bringing the article-up that suggests more errors & or accidents are correlated by agency nurses use doesn't support your original premise. it's like, you found something else wrong with using agency nurses & decided to add what the article stated with your original premise. once the article was paraphrased by you...you'd presented it from your understanding & point of view...most of us have not read it for our selves as of yet & are only going by how you've presented it. i promise, when i do get the time, i will read it for myself & come to my own conclusion as to what it's exactly saying.

and your absolutely right as far as you're being able to use it for your class debate...it was perfectly fine & appropriate because the article can be presented or passed around & everyone has the opportunity to drawl their own conclusions. it's rather difficult to drawl any conclusions here on the internet bbs without having verbal as well as non-verbal cues...that's all. :roll

mattsmom81 · Apr 22, 2002

I also can find a correlation in my critical care unit that the more doctors are in the unit at any given time the more the patients are neglected (the docs want our attention).

Studies and statistics can be (and are) skewed to meet the needs/agenda of the people running the study....IMHO. :)

Which is why I take them with a grain of sale in many cases.

Q. · Apr 22, 2002

Yep, except in the blood infection case, the study was actually done to look at OTHER aspects of increased rate of infection, such as acuity of the patient, type of infection, etc and in their findings found as a side note that the rate when up for a period of 6 months when agency nurse use was high. The entire article wasn't to "bash" agency nurses as some of you might think. The correlation wasn't even the main purpose of the study!

I really think paranoia is running rampant in the nursing profession. No one is "out to get" agency nurses for cripe's sake. "They, them" are not out "to discredit" anyone or suggest that agency nurses don't wash their hands. Yikes, people!

fadingyouth · Apr 22, 2002

Perhaps on the day that that particular study was done there were more agency nurses, but was it due to a lack of staff nurses?

Anyone can pick a topic, study it and make something out of it.

I do not think that it is "paranoia running rampant", but the fact that agency nurses are tired of always being associated with the negatives or indiscretionately at fault.

The statement that mattsmom made is a valid one- it occurs in most settings-not just critical care units.

I have recently been in areas where the RN is in "care of the desk" and won't lend a hand under any circumstances. I have seen professional nursing students disrespect an LVN because they were informed that LVN's could not possibly have the correct answer. I know of LVN's that know less and function less than a CNA. Let's do a study relating to effective nursing standards-all nurses,not just agency.

Universal precautions is to be used by all --not just a chosen few.

Q. · Apr 22, 2002

Originally posted by fadingyouth
Perhaps on the day that that particular study was done there were more agency nurses, but was it due to a lack of staff nurses?

I believe the study wasn't done on a particular DAY. It was a study over several months. Looking at something for one day only wouldn't really be statistically significant as there is not enough data to identify a trend.

Let's do a study relating to effective nursing standards-all nurses,not just agency.

That was the original intent of the study. The study looked at the staffing mix of all nurses (new grads, experience level, educational level) to look at how it affected infection, etc. In the process of analyzing data, noticed the correlation. The point of the study was not to single out agency nurses nor was it the goal, intent or premise. That is what I want everyone to understand.

**SKM-NURSIEPOOH, BSN, RN** · Apr 22, 2002

originally posted by susy k ... the study looked at the staffing mix of all nurses (new grads, experience level, educational level) to look at how it affected infection, etc. in the process of analyzing data, noticed the correlation. the point of the study was not to single out agency nurses nor was it the goal, intent or premise. that is what i want everyone to understand.

...because even if the original intent of the article was to take a look at how the affects of various nursing personnel impact have on infection, etc...what does the resulting correlation found in this article have to do with your original premise that utilizing agency nurses as opposed to staff nurses doesn't fix a broken system. your premise was that utilizing agency nurses does nothing to solve the overall nursing shortage issue & the lack of institutionalized participation by agency nurses. finding a correlation in a study that doesn't support your original argument about using agency nurses as a "quick fix" to the broken system is what's so confusing...at least for me...because it doesn't support your view about agency nurses...the correlation is just an added bonus to what you've said initially.

so again, why present the article if it doesn't support your orginial premise??? :confused:

Q. · Apr 22, 2002

Originally posted by SKM-NURSIEPOOH
So again, why present the article if it doesn't support your orginial premise???

Because it was appropriate in defending our position, that's why.

My opinion that I expressed here on this board has nothing to do with the debate and how it was presented. We didn't present the debate from the stance that agency doesn't get as involved as staff nurses, we presented it from the standpoint that agency shouldn't be used PERIOD.

fadingyouth · Apr 22, 2002

The use of the word"day" was not to be taken as just a 24 hr. period. Surprisingly enough, I am well aware of the time it takes to justify a study. Research is not an overnite process.

Perhaps your stand on agency nurses will allow you to work harder, provide less care due to less time, and rethink your previous ideas.

Opinionated persons in any business are difficult to work with. but especially hard on those who accept no help when it is offerred.

Although I feel sorry for the patients, I cannot shed a tear for small-minded nurses.

Q. · Apr 22, 2002

Originally posted by fadingyouth
The use of the word"day" was not to be taken as just a 24 hr. period. Surprisingly enough, I am well aware of the time it takes to justify a study. Research is not an overnite process.
Perhaps your stand on agency nurses will allow you to work harder, provide less care due to less time, and rethink your previous ideas.
Opinionated persons in any business are difficult to work with. but especially hard on those who accept no help when it is offerred.
Although I feel sorry for the patients, I cannot shed a tear for small-minded nurses.

I sure hope your post wasn't directed at me personally because this was a debate for class. The con position was what was handed to me to argue. I wasn't allowed to "rethink" my ideas as the assignment was to argue against agency nurse use. In doing so, have subsequently formed an opinion. Sorry if it doesn't jive with yours.

fadingyouth · Apr 22, 2002

A wise man once said "if the shoe fits, wear it"

Therefore, the impression would be that since you formed a bias against agency nurses, you will at sometime in your career pick up the slack and the associated difficulties.