Are we marketing tools or are we in healthcare?!

MS._Jen_RN, ASN, RN · Jan 18, 2008

sounds shady to me. check out http://www.nofreelunch.org it's about drug companies, but still applies. maybe post one of their things on the unit.

~jen

AmaurosisFugax · Jan 18, 2008

Is my manager just so clueless to think that this is all out of the goodness of the companies hearts and that it doesn't have anything to do with getting new, vulnerable business!!!!

You know the answer to that question, don't you!

billythekid · Jan 18, 2008

let's not forget about the baby pictures taken in hospital... they have access to the nursery even when parents are not present.. wonder what kind of deal they have worked out :)

nrsang97, BSN, RN · Jan 18, 2008

We have a policy forbidding companies from giving us free meals and such. We had a issue last year with the company codman who makes EVD drainage systems. We tried a few on the floor and the staff hated them and they kept coming in and offering us free lunches and thing before our faciliy adopted this facility. I was actually tired of them binging us food and trying to get us to use a product we hated.

pirap · Jan 18, 2008

Personally I don't mind when our formula rep comes by. I really don't believe he is trying to sabbotage a moms choice to breastfeed as he is there trying to get moms who CHOOSE to formula feed to use his brand so I have never seen the harm in it. I am 100% for breastfeeding and if mom decides to formula feed I am 100% dedicated/agreeable to the formula he represents. In a HEARTBEAT I recommend his formula anyway.

And yes I believe WE ARE MARKETING TOOLS. How else would products, drugs, medical devices, etc be available to enhance medical care come to be? We are on the front line so why not try something different? If its good OK and if not OK. I don't agree with bringing goodies all the time..that does not seem right to me..as if they are buying your input.

queenjean · Jan 18, 2008

I don't think it is appropriate for them to attend all your staff meetings! How can that be? Are they "staff"?

webbiedebbie · Jan 19, 2008

When you think about it, alot of things have brand names of companies on them that we use in the hospital. But I don't see those companies coming in promoting their products. I take for granted that if I use an alcohol wipe or syringe that their name is on the wrapper.

I worked one hospital where the person taking the pics of infants would do it in the mom's room and not in the Nursery. I thought that was nice.

MalgaBSN · Jan 19, 2008

And yes I believe WE ARE MARKETING TOOLS. How else would products, drugs, medical devices, etc be available to enhance medical care come to be?

I really don't think formula enhances medical care. And we as professional health care providers really shouldn't be recommending one brand over another. We should just be educating mothers that are formula feeding that its important for them to follow the instructions exactly for the right mixture and that they should buy formula that is fortified with iron. Just because you like the rep doesn't mean you should be pushing his brand, IMHO, because for all you know its the most expensive brand there is and parents think they have to stick with the one they leave the hospital with.

crysobrn · Jan 19, 2008

We rarely see our formula rep and it doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. When WIC changed from Similac to Enfamil last year our hospital kept both products to give moms a choice... actually the ones that get wic get the enfamil and the ones that don't qualify get to pick similac or enfamil... I personally could care less what we or they use, but I liked the old perks better (the tapemeasures, nursery books, nursettes even) BUT yes we are marketing tools.

When we need samples of things it is VERY easy to get some. We literally get tons of name brand "things" because I'm sure the companies know that if moms receive a sample at the hospital that they will continue to buy that because of brand loyalty and "the hospital must think it's best" because this is the brand they carry.

pirap · Jan 20, 2008

Yeah that is probably the most expensive brand that I am pushing. It has the highest levels of DHA and ARA on the market which places it the closest to BREAST MILK. Yeah I also EDUCATE moms on formula prep/storage/shelf life/refrigerator life, etc. If they ask me to recommend a formula I have a list of ALL the formulas in my pocket that break down the vitamins/minerals/nutrients/DHA/ARA levels and a handout that lists the brands, including store brands in this area. I always tell them they have a choice but I have kids that were all breastfed and when moms ask me what I used after they went to formula I tell them what I used. If moms want to save money and cut corners on stuff why pick the most important thing in an infants life--their food to skimp on? Buy store brand diapers!! Or "regular" clothes not all that FUBU/Nike/$$$ clothes that they will just spit up or poop on!

So back to the main issue. It's probably wrong to tell a mom point blank what to use( I do "recommend") but if they are trying to choose I lay it out for them in black and white with the nutritional lists of all formulas. I tell mom to choose one with the highest DHA/ARA levels.

MalgaBSN · Jan 20, 2008

pirap~ I'm not trying to flame you, but I have to say I am not impressed by your logic or the information you are providing to parents. You are not doing the research, but are instead promoting something based on how much you like your rep (or thats what it sounded like.

Heres what the AAP has to say about the new additives:

Is there any harm to adding DHA or ARA to infant formulas? In approving the addition of these oils to infant formula, the FDA expects infant formula manufacturers to sponsor scientific studies and to pursue rigorous post-marketing surveillance and monitoring of formulas containing DHA and ARA. This recommendation implies that infants may still be at risk for unknown adverse effects of these oils. A negative effect on growth of DHA supplements when provided alone has been reported in preterm infants, but when DHA is combined with ARA as a supplement for formula, no adverse effects on growth have been observed in either term or preterm infants. Concerns have been raised that the addition of LC-PUFAs to formulas for preterm infants will increase the likelihood of oxidant damage, but to date no differences have been reported in the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis or other neonatal conditions in infants receiving supplements of either DHA or both ARA and DHA, compared with unsupplemented formula.
Expert panels from Life Sciences Research Organization assessed nutrient requirements for both term and preterm infant formulas and recommended neither a minimum nor maximum content of either ARA or DHA for term infant formula ( Raiten DJ, et al. J Nutr. 1998;128:2059S-2093S). For preterm infant formula, they recommended maximum levels of 0.35% and 0.6% of total fatty acid intake for DHA and ARA, respectively. No minimum levels were recommended (according to a yet-to-be-published study). However, the report concludes that the benefits reported to date for preterm infants are modest and in part transient, thus supporting an optional rather than a mandatory addition of the LC-PUFA to preterm formula.
Given the relative paucity of data on this subject, the AAP Committee on Nutrition (CON) has recommended that the Academy not take an official stand at this time on the addition of LC-PUFAs to term infant formulas. Concerns are raised, however, that the recently introduced formulas are not intended for use in preterm infants, the group most likely to benefit from additional quantities of these fatty acids. (Further FDA approval is necessary for the addition of LC-PUFAs to preterm infant formula.) Though it recently granted approval for the addition of the LC-PUFA oils to infant formula (as noted previously), the FDA has expectations that the formula companies will continue to pursue post-marketing scientific studies and surveillance. As guidelines for such studies of infant formula are nonexistent, and it is yet unclear how the FDA will assure that such studies are completed, CON urges caution regarding the addition of other bioactive factors to formula with similar post-marketing expectations in the future. What is the bottom line for pediatricians and families? Breast milk still remains the feeding of choice and the availability of these formulas does not change this fact. Pediatricians are urged to discuss with parents what is known about the potential benefits of adding LC-PUFAs to formulas for term infants, while weighing this information against the increased costs of these new products. It should be made clear that at this time these formulas are one of many alternative products available for infants.
(I added the highlighting)

You are recommending something thats more expensive AND hasn't been tested appropriately yet.

It has the highest levels of DHA and ARA on the market which places it the closest to BREAST MILK

This is not a true statment. Formula is not close to breastmilk. They have completely different components and there are studies that show even introducing one bottle of formula can impact an infants health, so it really shouldn't be taken lightly. And I really hope you are not telling your patients that the formula with the additives is closer to breastmilk.

I always tell them they have a choice but I have kids that were all breastfed and when moms ask me what I used after they went to formula I tell them what I used

Infants do not ever have to go to formula. They should be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months and then to at least 1 year and beyond. No need to supplement.

I tell mom to choose one with the highest DHA/ARA levels.

See AAP statement above. Don't recommend things based on what your rep is telling you! Do your homework!