Do you think this will improve staffing?

[ShayRN]

I was informed at work the other day that Medicare the almighty will no longer pay hospitals for: Hospital acquired infections, Hospital acquired bedsores, DVT'S or IV infections. Is this true? If it is, my thought is this...with better and safer staffing levels these things can be much more readily prevented. Do you think that MAYBE someone in administration will get the clue that if they provide adequate staffing levels on the units they will in the long run save themselves money? I mean surely it is cheaper to pay for an extra aide, LPN or RN (or 2, or 3) on the floor and avoid the costs of 5 extra days with all the expenses that go along with the listed complications. Or am I asking too much to think that ANYONE in administration has COMMON SENSE?

:deadhorse:banghead::lol_hitti

[EmmaG, RN]

I mean surely it is cheaper to pay for an extra aide, LPN or RN (or 2, or 3) on the floor and avoid the costs of 5 extra days with all the expenses that go along with the listed complications. Or am I asking too much to think that ANYONE in administration has COMMON SENSE?

:deadhorse:banghead::lol_hitti

I interviewed yesterday with a med/surg unit director who did just that--- armed herself with statistics on patient outcomes (specific to these issues) as they relate to staffing, then petitioned TPTB for a lower patient/nurse ratio citing these new regs--- and actually had it approved.

I'm still trying to pick my jaw up from the floor....