Jump to content

Federal Nurse Staffing Bill Comparison

Updated | Posted
NursesTakeDC NursesTakeDC (Trusted Brand) Trusted Brand

Specializes in Safe Staffing Advocate/Group.

You are reading page 2 of Federal Nurse Staffing Bill Comparison. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Which bills do you support?

  1. 1. Which bills do you support?

    • 27
      S. 1063/HR 2392 RN ratios & acuity
    • 1
      S.2446/HR 5052 Acuity plan only

28 members have participated

catstks, BSN

Specializes in ICU, Cath Lab/IR CCRN. Has 10 years experience.

I don't know how much more clear it can be made with the post that the bill for mandated ratios actually includes acuity. Read the part about acuity. SMH... Anyone who works in facilities that actually follow their staffing committees recommendations should feel very lucky and understand thats not the case for many nurses across the US.

catstks, BSN

Specializes in ICU, Cath Lab/IR CCRN. Has 10 years experience.

The ANA legislation is worthless in a lot of hospitals as management staffs from a budget and census. Not necessarily acuity. The benefit of having ratios is that it "sets a limit" to the number of patients a nurse must take. It includes acuity so the "acuity" argument against the bills HR 2392 and S 1063 is invalid. Ever vacation out of state? Don't get sick because you never know what crap shoot you will get. Especially in desirable destination states like FL. It is tiring seeing acuity be used as an excuse not to support the ratio bill. Nurses can ALWAYS be given less patients.

catstks, BSN

Specializes in ICU, Cath Lab/IR CCRN. Has 10 years experience.

Their legislation looks great on paper. Problem is... many states who have acuity based legislation are still struggling with unsafe ratios and working on getting ratios because of it. For example... Ohio, they have the ANA state legislation, ICU nurses are reporting getting 3/4 critical (multiple critical drips, ventilated, and unstable patients. I have seen the same testimonies in Illinois (who also has ANA legislation). The legislation has no real teeth to hold hospitals accountable. It is legislation that caters to hospital administration with an attempt to make nurses feel involved in the process. The verbiage appears as though the bedside nurses will ACTUALLY have a voice which in reality is often over ridden by management. We need a set limit to the amount of patients a nurse is forced to take. Ratio legislation is great because we can have the set limit and still adjust down in patient assignment for acuity.

You can believe that the ANA bill isn't all it might look like on the surface by noting who approves of it.

A staffing committee without a few more guidelines is problematic, period.

Certain people are invited to be on the committee. If a few reasonable and prudent nurses are invited to participate they invariably come back and report what they tried to discuss and how eventually it came around to the fact that whatever decisions they were supposed to be participating in were actually already made. This is not a "sometimes" thing; it is expected standard operations.

There is, and always has been the option of an organization doing what is ethical based on their own volition. Those who have been responsible in the past may handle a flexible plan responsibly in the future. But isn't this whole issue because of those who already haven't done just that? So how does one argue for flexibility when flexibility has always been an option and hasn't been utilized responsibily?

(I don't like the idea of mandated ratios and IMO neither one of these are worth the paper they're written on; I'm just arguing against the insanity of the idea that hospitals will use the concept of flexibility in an ethical manner).

By the way:

Quote
"(f) Refusal Of Assignment.

-A nurse may refuse to accept an assignment as a nurse in a participating hospital, or in a unit of a participating hospital, if-

"(1) the assignment is in violation of the hospital-wide staffing plan for nursing services implemented pursuant to subsection (a); or

"(2) the nurse is not prepared by education, training, or experience to fulfill the assignment without compromising the safety of any patient or jeopardizing the license of the nurse

There is no way this will play out the way a casual reader might imagine. And the fact that they used the wording "....or jeopardizing the license of the nurse" should be considered with maximum suspicion, IMO. Maximum. Anyone who reads much on this forum knows why I say that.

Chisca, RN

Specializes in Dialysis. Has 37 years experience.

The ANA would have us depend on the kindness of strangers.

DannyBoy8, RN

Has 4 years experience.

The ANA is gutless. Get ratios on the ballot as a proposition like they've done in Mass.

NursesTakeDC

Specializes in Safe Staffing Advocate/Group.

klone said:
Mandated ratios are meaningless unless you also develop an acuity rating.

Oregon has new staffing laws that require the hospital create a staffing plan, based on acuity as well as census, preferably using the recommendations of applicable professional organization. I feel very fortunate that women's health already has a very robust and specific staffing recommendation that we can use.

I don't know how much more clear it can be made with the post that the bill for mandated ratios actually includes acuity. Read the part about acuity. SMH... Anyone who works in facilities that actually follow their staffing committees recommendations should feel very lucky and understand thats not the case for many nurses across the US.

Delia37, MSN

Specializes in Critical Care. Has 15 years experience.

What is going on with the ANA???

Reading the ANA's bill, I get the impression they leave the ratio to the criteria of each hospital.