Agency Nursing vs Staff Nursing

Stargazer · Apr 22, 2002

A wise man once said "if the shoe fits, wear it"
Therefore, the impression would be that since you formed a bias against agency nurses, you will at sometime in your career pick up the slack and the associated difficulties.

Huh?

**SKM-NURSIEPOOH, BSN, RN** · Apr 22, 2002

originally posted by susy k ...because it was appropriate in defending our position, that's why.

my opinion that i expressed here on this board has nothing to do with the debate and how it was presented. we didn't present the debate from the stance that agency doesn't get as involved as staff nurses, we presented it from the standpoint that agency shouldn't be used period.

i meant why present the article here on this bb not in presenting it to your class.

i've stated before that it was appropriate to present it to your class as you all had the opportunity to read, dissect, & come to whatever conclusions. :rolleyes:

i just meant, why present the article here on the bb in the first place if that's not the message that you wanted relayed here. when you first brought the subject-up & later-on in your debating, your position was against using agency nursing as a "quick fix" to a broken healthcare system...not that they have a higher correlation to needle sticks & increased infection doing agency usage...as the article suggests in their data. it's as if you've used the conclusion of their data as something else to add credit or support to your original position.

mattsmom81 · Apr 22, 2002

To those who say we should not utilize agency nurses, I only shrug and say fine with me, "Let them work short." Hospitals LOVE when nurses cooperate with that idea...saves 'em a few bucks. $ :) $

This may be what FadingYouth was getting at as well.

I have worked at facilities whose policy was NOT to use agency and they ran their nurses ragged..floated untrained nurses into ER and ICU, etc.Working dangerously short became the routine. Of course they had trouble keeping their nurses for very long....they tended to recruit new grads, give them a fancy title and 'mold' them to their way of thinking....until the poor dears figured things out and moved on to greener pastures.

Oh and perhaps most important...patient care was the pits and the hospital developed a horrid reputation in the community...many of the docs pulled out too...

Brownms46 · Apr 22, 2002

Originally posted by Susy K

Because it was appropriate in defending our position, that's why.

My opinion that I expressed here on this board has nothing to do with the debate and how it was presented. We didn't present the debate from the stance that agency doesn't get as involved as staff nurses, we presented it from the standpoint that agency shouldn't be used PERIOD.

You really have GOT to be kidding?? Right??? You couldn't actually be advocating NOT using agency nurses at all??? :chuckle:...if this was the case then the hospital I working at now... it would be closed!!! Why because the majority of their staff is agency...or travlers! And for the other hospitals I have worked with in the last 20 + yrs...there would be even LESS nurses out there willing to work with 10 + or more pts d/t not having the staff to share the load!

You think the shortage is bad now....just try NOT using agency and she how long folks stay around. and how unsafe clinical situations can REALLY get!

I'm glad the nurses I work with in the last few days don't feel as you do...as they were GLAD not to have 9 or more pts...as THANKED me for being there!!!

And as for mistakes...I could share some horror stories about pts I received report on from STAFF nurses only to find the report was erroneous to say the least! I also walked into a pt room just last nite to find a Dobutrex drip that had RAN OUT....and on the same pt. a Dopamine drip that was going at FIVE times the ORDERED rate!!! :eek: :eek:!! I also watched nurses touching blood and other body fuilds with NO gloves on....AND not once did I see anyone wash their hands....and "I" was the only agency person on duty!!! I also withnessed a pt. IV site where a "staff nurse" had actually changed the date on it to read a later date than the site had actually been started ....so SHE wouldn't have to changed the site!! Guess that must have been a big plus for infection control..humm??? Right..

I say...let ALL the nurses who don't want help...PLEASE speak up...and "WE" agency nurses should make sure "WE" don't go to your hospital when our agencies call saying your hospital needs help!!! In fact...tell your hospital NOT to bother calling agencies for help....and save us the trouble of being abused by nurses who think we cause more trouble then "we" are worth!

I wonder how long would staff nurses put up with having to take unsafe assignments...hummm?? :cool:

Q. · Apr 22, 2002

Originally posted by SKM-NURSIEPOOH
I meant why present the article here on this BB not in presenting it to your class. I've stated before that it was appropriate to present it to your class as you all had the opportunity to read, dissect, & come to whatever conclusions.

Actually no. Are you familiar with how debates are done? One side presents their argument, backed with research for 10 minutes. The other side presents their argument, backed with research, for 10 minutes. Then the other side is offered a rebuttal period, and then the debate is over. In preparing for the debate, you research BOTH sides, not just the side YOU are presenting. You do this to anticipate and refute the other side's arguments. For example - the pro side listed articles that said that higher use of agency means more staff and better patient care. WE presented higher use of agency correlates with increased patient safety risks and does NOT equal better patient care. There is no presenting the article, circulating it and having everyone dissect it. The pro side, if having done their research, should have ANTICIPATED our using that argument and have prepared a rebuttal. And they did.

It's as if you've used the conclusion of their data as something else to add credit or support to your original position.

That is precisely why we used it. We were trying to defend our position. That is what a debate is. I'm confused by YOUR confusion in all this.

Q. · Apr 23, 2002

Sigh.

Brownie - this was a debate. A DEBATE. A class project. We really didn't have a choice NOT to advocate for agency or not. If we flat our refused well then, I guess we flunk the class as it was worth 40% of our grade.

One of the girls on my team IS an agency nurse and she argued against agency as passionately as the rest of us - so we can PASS THE CLASS. She also noted she learned something. Sometimes exercises like these are designed to expose you to other ideas and opinions.

I think we are all missing the point here. Let's all go back and read the FIRST post in this thread.

Q. · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Stargazer
Huh?

I second that. Huh?

fadingyouth · Apr 23, 2002

Nicely stated. Thank You.

I have seen the no agency policy initiated time and time again and when all have threatened to walk out--the telephone rings . Suddenly agency is once again welcomed back with open arms.

For the very young nurses may I tell you that this is nothing new. every 3 to 5 years some professional in a glass office decides they can do more with less.

Does not happen!

Brownms46 · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Susy K
Sigh.
Brownie - this was a debate. We really didn't have a choice NOT to advocate for agency or not. If we flat our refused well then, I guess we flunk the class as it was worth 40% of our grade.

Susy K,

My post was referring to the discussion of the study you presented...and YOUR past and possibly present feelings about the use of agency nurses.

I understand that your initial start of this thread was for the purpose of gaining information for your debate. Which I think was a very relevent and from what you reported a much needed and engaging subject that needed to be explored. I feel from what you reported that this debate probably gave many a lot to think about.

But it is the STUDY that I think bothers most here...and the fact that it was placed in this same thread!

Many agency nurses had over the years heard over and over again....how we are the devil incarnate...and the true ills to what is wrong with nursing. The problem is...the same nurses who are staff somewhere...are many times agency somewhere else. So is it really a real indicator that agency nurses are a determent to pt care or that this study was bias in it's reporting??? I think many of us are just tired of being the scapegoats out there.

We're either dumped on....or expected to do the impossible during our short time on a unit! Instead of making appropriate assignmemts based on a nurses abilities..."we" are expected to "perform"...on the basis of how well "we" are paid! So who really suffers here ...the pt??? the agency nurse...or the staff who will probably not get help from the same agency nurse...the next night they call for help???

I went on a unit one night to find staff excited that I had come back! Why did I come back?? Because they HADN'T dumped on me...and they were helpful as they had learned that it doesn't "pay" to dump on us!!! Many times I and I'm sure other do also...have NO problem with returning to the same unit time and time again. So the theory that agency nurses are always working in unfamiliar setting isn't true. Many times the agency nurse is on a particular unit as much as staff is! As I have said before...I and I'm sure others have had hospital call to find out why they don't have you on their schedule and can you work for them!!

This study is one that screams to be read with a "discerning eye"!.. :cool:

**SKM-NURSIEPOOH, BSN, RN** · Apr 23, 2002

i just wanted to inform you that you were receiving quite a few rebuttals that sounded upset with the article you brought-up here on the bbs. most folks here haven't had the opportunity to read it or have it presented to them as your team obviously did during class; therefore, that's why the agency nurses & those who support their position oppose the findings of the article.

and i'm quite sure that both sides had their articles readily available upon request...if folks wanted to read them...that least they should've been readily available for challenge! :eek:

originally posted by susy k ...actually no. are you familiar with how debates are done? one side presents their argument, backed with research for 10 minutes. the other side presents their argument, backed with research, for 10 minutes. then the other side is offered a rebuttal period, and then the debate is over. in preparing for the debate, you research both sides, not just the side you are presenting. you do this to anticipate and refute the other side's arguments. for example - the pro side listed articles that said that higher use of agency means more staff and better patient care. we presented higher use of agency correlates with increased patient safety risks and does not equal better patient care. there is no presenting the article, circulating it and having everyone dissect it. the pro side, if having done their research, should have anticipated our using that argument and have prepared a rebuttal. and they did.

that is precisely why we used it. we were trying to defend our position. that is what a debate is. i'm confused by your confusion in all this.

try not to get up-set with me if i ask for clarification on a point that you've made...i just want to understand what it is that you're trying to say.

:rolleyes:

Q. · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Brownms46
This study is one that screams to be read with a "discerning eye"!..

As do the articles that the pro side used to support THEM. I hear what you are saying, but bottom line, I think agency has it's place, for extended LOAs etc. But using them to staff the floors without addressing the real issues is not productive. In doing the project, we had found alot of real issues that staff nurses have with agency as well (those that I listed originally in like, post #4 or something like that)

Like with the needle stick issue. We atributed that to and used that article to support our claim about the crappy orientations that agency nurses typically get. Heck, when my floor switched angiocath types, WE had more needlesticks!

I guess I didn't think that sharing what I had found in my research WOULDN'T have a place in this thread, which is precisely what is was: Agency vs Staff. I asked for input from BOTH sides; if I hadn't presented the article, someone else might have.

That is all, really.

Q. · Apr 23, 2002

originally posted by skm-nursiepooh
i just wanted to inform you that you were receiving quite a few rebuttals that sounded upset with the article you brought-up here on the bbs. most folks here haven't had the opportunity to read it or have it presented to them as your team obviously did during class; therefore, that's why the agency nurses & those who support their position oppose the findings of the article.

and i'm quite sure that both sides had their articles readily available upon request...if folks wanted to read them...that least they should've been readily available for challenge! try not to get up-set with me if i ask for clarification on a point that you've made...i just want to understand what it is that you're trying to say.

moe i am not upset with you per se. just confused.