Annoyed by commercial

Nurses General Nursing

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.

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.

I think that is what annoyed me, the commercial would lead the average person to believe that staffing levels are decided on the floors by the nurses doing the care.

Yet medicare is reducing payments for unsafe staffing levels.

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?

The sad thing is medical/nursing errors ard NOT seen as preventable, but are accepted as status quo. I can say I felt I was a much better nurse with 4 patients (high acuity unit) than I was with 5, 6, or 7 patients.

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

I don't know. My speculation would be they don't want "official legislation" muddying the waters, such as a government body deciding what is a safe level. I'll research it.

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

But when I worked here in LTC/subacute we might have 40 or 60 patients per nurse.

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:

Its crazy... I'd love to see those nurses have to work a month on a busy floor with the current staffing levels, they'd last maybe a week and complain about their full bladder, yet its a reality that we often go without breaks, lunches, or even a two minute pee break.

I don't know. My speculation would be they don't want "official legislation" muddying the waters, such as a government body deciding what is a safe level. I'll research it.

I've posted about this a number of times...check my activity for the threads. The ANA is not 'for nursing'. They're a bunch of suit-wearing DC think tankers who are in bed with the AMA, AHA, etc. They have tried and failed to implement flawed 'staffing committee' legislation while the nursing unions made progress elsewhere.

Their numbers are dwindling...1,000 members in Massachusetts vs 30k+ for the union that is backing the ratio initiative.

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.

I really want to know where they're getting the money for these primetime commercials. They have been running nonstop in MA. The ad says funding is mainly from the organization of nurse leaders and the hospital association.

The true measure/implication of staffing ratio legislation hasn't been discussed publicly, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what community we're up against - and they have loads of money.

Yet medicare is reducing payments for unsafe staffing levels.

I'd like to read more. Any source or link available?

I'd like to read more. Any source or link available?

I'm not sure about links, I'll hunt around. What I have seen clearyly with my own two eyes were notices put up at several hospitals in the "legal info" area (where they put required labor notices from the state, etc) saying that if a hospital was "consistently understaffed, that medicare would be reducing payments", and I know as a direct result of this in the past 2.5 years I have gotten cold calls or emails from the HR of hospitals I had applied to years earlier asking me if I was still interested, my current job I got this way, because their medicare payments took a big hit. I seen it in writing and will see if I can find something to send you (I have no idea what the numbers look like as far as deciding short staffed)

I think the terminology I saw was "chronically understaffed hospital" and relates to the CoPs through medicare and medicaid. Just google medicare and chronic understaffing, it should bring links that mention it.

Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
Genuine question: I know that it one of the states that has a staffing ratio up to vote, the ANA is opposing it. Why?

Good question. Also good reason to dump ANA membership is you haven't already done so. I think the official reason is that mandated staffing laws don't take into account the whole staffing picture. But what does?

The real reason? Money or power or cronyism. There are whores in every profession.

Time to get the family members on our side and have them lean on legislators. "Do you want safe care for your family member?" Yes, of course.

+ Add a Comment