Annoyed by commercial

Published

Just venting... I heard a commercial this morning that aggravated the heck out of me. My state will be voting to add safe staffing measures to the upcoming ballot.

The commercial was to the effect of "Don't vote for safe staffing, it will cost healthcare billions, nurses should be allowed to decide safe staffing levels (meaning those that have gone to the dark side as staffing specialists).

As someone who worked on a super busy unit with an avg load of 5 patients, occ. six, and on one memorable occasion seven patients., I can attest to the fact that there was a HUGE difference on the (very) few occasions I had 4 patients. When I had 4 patients I felt I could critically think, thoroughly assess, and provide my patients with a good level of care. Five patients meant running all day and feeling guilty over the lack of time I had for the less needy ones.

Geez, if I had several million dollars I'd make my own commercial. Ok done venting.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Trauma, Teaching.

I went to the committee reviewing our safe staffing bill, (state legislature), and testified about the difficulty in caring for that many people at once. I explained patient loads are nothing like they were 20 years ago. But of course, some "nurse" tesitified about the millions it would cost and very strongly implied it was only my union hospital that was complaining and how a law shouldn't be passed just for us. :mad:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It really is amazing that only one state has been able to pass mandated ratios. I can't even imagine what nurses in other states go through. Almost every traveler that comes through the hospital (in California) is flabbergasted that we can't go out of ratios for lunch or 15 minute breaks, to the point that you will be paid extra for a missed meal or break if the charge nurse has patients and can't relieve you. I really hope it passes! If they want the nurses to decide safe staffing levels, ask the nurses to decide what it should be and then mandate it by law!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Varied.

I can't fathom there are nurses who realistically believe that 5-7 patients is safe for ANYONE. Has anyone considered the cost in terms of reducing medication errors, sentinel events, falls, CAUTIS, CLABSIS, or the various other errors that occur related to unsafe nursing ratios?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I can't fathom there are nurses who realistically believe that 5-7 patients is safe for ANYONE. Has anyone considered the cost in terms of reducing medication errors, sentinel events, falls, CAUTIS, CLABSIS, or the various other errors that occur related to unsafe nursing ratios?

Sell-outs occur even in nursing. No matter how much money they waved at me (to testify those ratios are safe) I'd decline. Personally I'd rather keep my soul thank you very much.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Of course the money on the commercial could have been spent on better staffing in the first place...and people wonder why nurses burn out. Let's see, how many years will someone willingly drive to work each day and run around like a chicken with their head cut off for 12 hours (which is usually longer), drive home thankful that no one died because staffing was horrible, and repeat the same crazy crud day after day after day? Let me guess, we will be told there's a pill to help cope with that:-(

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.

In some regard we have only ourselves to blame. I have watched over the years as the responsibilities have increased and the supports have decreased and yet we continue to slog along like dutiful co-dependent women. Of course I know it isn't that simplistic but the overall outcome remains.

Thank you to those who are finally taking a stand.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Just venting... I heard a commercial this morning that aggravated the heck out of me. My state will be voting to add safe staffing measures to the upcoming ballot.

The commercial was to the effect of "Don't vote for safe staffing, it will cost healthcare billions, nurses should be allowed to decide safe staffing levels (meaning those that have gone to the dark side as staffing specialists).

As someone who worked on a super busy unit with an avg load of 5 patients, occ. six, and on one memorable occasion seven patients., I can attest to the fact that there was a HUGE difference on the (very) few occasions I had 4 patients. When I had 4 patients I felt I could critically think, thoroughly assess, and provide my patients with a good level of care. Five patients meant running all day and feeling guilty over the lack of time I had for the less needy ones.

Geez, if I had several million dollars I'd make my own commercial. Ok done venting.

After safe staffing was signed into law California hospitals spent years tying it up in court stating they did not have money for nurses but had millions to fight it.

I think then Governor Gray Davis signed it in sans vote. I wouldn't let commercials get to you much, the same demographics who vote every time are also same in hospitals and are not likely stupid enough to believe that "I have the time" script.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in SICU, trauma, neuro.
"nurses should be allowed to decide safe staffing levels"[/Quote]

I would love for nurses to be allowed to determine safe staffing levels...didn't realize that was an option. :sarcastic: "Seven patients is unsafe, but I will take four of them."

Yeah, when pigs fly through a frozen hell.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.

I'm in California and staffing ratios sure as hell don't apply in LTC. Having 20+ patients is unsafe.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Genuine question: I know that it one of the states that has a staffing ratio up to vote, the ANA is opposing it. Why?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

You can bet that corporate health care has invested millions of dollars in payoffs, lawyers, and lobbyists to squelch these initiatives as soon as they arise-'follow the $$'. Though I'm hopeful, I'm also a realist and don't believe that this is something I'll see in my professional career.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion