Hospitals Firing Seasoned Nurses: Nurses FIGHT Back!

Facilities are firing seasoned, higher paid nurses and utilizing younger less experienced nurses. This cost-cutting measure is putting patients at risk, working nursing and support staff to the point of exhaustion, and causing staff to leave the profession. Nurses General Nursing Article

Updated:  

This article was written by a member on allnurses. Due to the controversial and emotionally charged nature of the article, the member wanted the topic out in the open so nurses could discuss it. Because she is afraid of retribution if any of her hospital administrative staff should read this article and link it back to her, we offered to publish it for her anonymously. Please add your comments regarding this issue negatively impacting nurses and the healthcare system.

An Open Letter to Hospital Administrators

I am an experienced nurse that has watched many of my very talented colleagues leave the bedside due to the changes that have taken place in healthcare as of late. I have seen staff cut to the minimum, while patient acuity and nurse to patient ratios increase. I have seen support staff break down in tears because they have not been able to do their jobs properly. I have seen staff pushed to their breaking point, all the while administration stays in their offices, or in the meetings, determining yet more ways they can cut our resources. I see your salaries raised to ridiculous amounts, while we are denied cost of living increases, housekeeping is cut at night, and our benefits cost more, while the services are decreased.

I see our retirement cut while at the same time, the amount matched continues to be diminished or non-existent.

I see ways in which we are constantly blamed for declining patient satisfaction, increased patient falls, late medication administration, all the while we are asked to do more with less. I have seen you fire experienced staff and hire less experienced, cheaper, staff. I have seen that new staff break down because they have no resources, no experience to draw from and I have seen patients suffer from that inexperience. I have seen codes increase, inappropriate admissions to floors, transfers to higher levels of care, all because no one was there initially to advocate for a higher level of care for the patient, to begin with.

I still see you in your office. I do not see you on the floor. I see you with your graphs, your pie charts, your questions about readmission rates when I had already advocated for that patient to stay longer but was simply laughed off by doctors and not supported by you. Yet, somehow, I need to be on a committee to fix the problem.

I am now required to work extra shifts, because staff are getting sick due to stress, or leaving completely because they are tired of dealing with things. I see you develop a culture of fear, where our jobs are at stake and threatened at every turn. Yet, you still look to me for solutions.

"How can we do more with what we have?" I am asked.

My answer: There is no way to do more. We are at our limit. You are losing nurses as fast as you are gaining them, at a time when we need to be building up our profession when the baby boomers are just starting to become a factor in our healthcare environment.

My answer to this is simple. It is time to get real and start valuing your employees. If you want to be reimbursed for patient satisfaction, increase your services. Staff departments with what they need - enough nurses, enough aids, monitor techs, secretaries, ED techs, whatever. Then you will see positive results. Falls will decrease. Medication errors will decrease and medications will be given on time. Patients will get the treatment they deserve and patient satisfaction scores will improve. Your reimbursement will improve and you will stop losing money. Everyone wins: most importantly, the patients.

We need to stop the assembly-line mentality of medicine and return to the service mentality.

Yes, we are a business. But any business that has ever done well has not done well by decreasing the services to people or by mistreating its staff. Otherwise, healthcare facilities are going to see more of the same and suffer more financial penalties, less high-quality staff, and patients will suffer.

I was talking with several of my colleagues just the other day. All of us had many years of experience. Many had been at the bedside for over 20+ years. Many are leaving the bedside due to the unsafe conditions they are seeing. They just don't want to be a part of it. Perhaps this does not scare you, but it should. You must not be a patient yet.

For a follow-up article, please go to Nurses Fight Back! Why Some Hospitals are Despicable

Hospitals Firing Seasoned Nurses_ Nurses FIGHT Back! _ allnurses.pdf

Specializes in SICU/CVICU.
TiffyRN said:
I just can't . . .

I agree.

There are non so blind as those who will not see.

Then you should all take a look at the paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by Stanford researcher, John Ionnidis and the article, "Making It All Up" by Andrew Furguson. But they're not in keeping with your neat little university narratives so I'll understand why you won't read them. I respect all of you for your years of experience in nursing. But I don't respect the views of people who just blindly go along with something because it's the in-vogue thing to do. Administrators and CEOs see this and it is one of the reasons that no matter what the degree, nurses will not be respected. And because so many were so willing to go along with a false piece of propaganda contrived to increase enrollments and revenue so people can keep their cushy jobs where they can eat doughnuts, drink coffee, barely move their ample cabooses out of a seat and be accountable for nothing. Come to think of it, I've also just described many nurse managers. In a few short years, as many nurses start to retire and have nothing to lose, they'll start to talk. But I'm not going to wait. I am publishing in non-nursing media outlets and do to those driving the BSN push the same thing they've been doing to associate and diploma prepared nurses for the last few years. Manipulating nurses into taking out huge student loans for to write useless papers on topics such as "The Sociology of Nursing" is deplorable. I loath venal and prevaricating people. And don't give me the new-normal excuse, because it's simply just idiocy.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.
avengingspirit1 said:
Then you should all take a look at the paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by Stanford researcher, John Ionnidis and the article, "Making It All Up" by Andrew Furguson. But they're not in keeping with your neat little university narratives so I'll understand why you won't read them.

Challenge accepted.

The Ionnidis article. . . very fine review of problems in the research world today. The author concludes by offering a variety of solutions, none of which include withdrawing from the process. BTW, I have spent the whole last semester critiquing research written by one of our recently retired beloved professors. It was an OK study, but had serious and (in most student's evaluation) concerning limitations, especially in generalizability.

The Furguson article, while entertaining, was not that relevant to this particular discussion. He was mostly discussing the severe limitations of social psychology research. There is a lot of social psychology in nursing research, but the Aiken (and her ilk as some might like to say) has nothing to do with the kind of research Furguson was (rightfully) attacking.

I am just participating in this discussion in hope to reach out to the segment of nurses out there that still gives some weight to science. I am not asking people to believe the research you read. I ask you to evaluate it critically. There are limitations to every study. Read the whole study, understand what the limitations are, read related studies and see how they are relating to each other. In the last day I have come up on published studies that did not find significant differences for care provided by different level of nursing education. Sorry didn't write them down. If the all publishers were "owned" by Aiken and her ilk, how would those ever have been published?

Science has its issues but in its ideal form, it self-corrects.

And finally. . .

How do you determine truth?

I would be interested to read of some randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large sample sizes that claim to show that care provided by nurses with a BSN yields superior patient clinical outcomes compared to that of care provided by nurses with an ADN or Diploma.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

It isn't feasible to do an RCT to test this question. Quasi-experimental is the closest that might could be done. I believe most of the work to date has retrospective. Nothing to be ashamed of, same design as the multiple studies showing NPs provide equivalent or better care to patients. Wait!!! How is that possible!!! MD education is much more extensive and expensive!! They are arguably the driving force in healthcare research. How can multiple studies show that a provider with cheaper education is just as good??????!

The study question would be whether RN's with a BSN provide care that results in superior clinical outcomes for patients versus care provided by ADN's/Diploma nurses when both groups have a similar amount of nursing experience, and subjects would be randomly assigned to either BSN nurses or ADN/Diploma nurses and clinical outcomes would be measured. Why would it not be feasible to do a RCT? Clinical outcomes are observable and measurable.

RCT is the gold standard. Other types of experimental design do not provide the same high level of evidence, and qualitative studies are quite far down the line in terms of level of evidence.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

Yes, you have done a fine job of describing the correct research question. Now, how do you assure that patients randomized to the BSN group actually get a BSN nurse? If you do that by sending those patients to units staffed only by BSNs? then you are really confounding your results. Do you think there might be challenges in getting enough participants when we go to consent them? "You may be randomly assigned to a nurse who has less formal education, and current research shows. . . ".

I'm currently designing and writing two research proposals. Feasibility and ability to pass through an IRB are responsible for a lot of choices on design.

RCT is the gold standard but isn't always feasible or ethical (though I don't believe ethics is a concern in this discussion).

Both BSN prepared nurses and ADN/Diploma nurses are licensed nurses qualified to provide nursing care, so the study participants would be receiving care from licensed nurses who are equally qualified to care for them by virtue of having completed a course of nursing education and passing the NCLEX. Although you consider a difference in "formal" education to be a potential concern, the reality is that most patients don't care if their nurse has a BSN or an ADN/Diploma; they care that their nurse is competent and caring, and the State Boards of Nursing who regulate the practice of nursing for the purpose of protecting the public do not recognize BSN prepared nurses as being better qualified to provide care than nurses with an ADN/Diploma. The other difficulties you posed are not insurmountable.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

I actually think the consenting process is not huge. What I find not feasible is how you assure certain patients always have a nurse with a specific educational level. Managers and charge nurses would lose their minds and when it didn't happen, your research protocol is screwed so no one is going to do that unless they have assurance it will go off without a hitch.

So how does that happen? Patients would Go to a unit with only BSNs versus only diploma/ADN? Now you've introduced a lot of confounding that is likely insurmountable unless these units were put together specifically for the research purpose. The dynamics of such a research controlled environment starts to approach laboratory like conditions. While that sounds ideal, it confounds a lot of uncontrollable factors. Is the environment and working conditions, resources, etc. . . equivalent in this ultra controlled unit to what is really happening in your average hospital unit?

This is why sometimes RCT is not appropriate for some experiments. Just read around and see how many experiments do not use RCT. It's not just laziness. It's often an attempt to boost external validity as much as possible.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

And back to the consent process. . . Here's a bit (not the whole thing, you'll be bored) from the IRB form I'm required to use. If you don't fill these out with the most conservative view towards protecting the patient, the IRB will just bump it back. Besides writing a section in your proposal about the potential harm to the research population..

I modified this from my proposal to your proposed research:

Quote

You are being asked to participate as a subject in the research project entitled, Clinical outcomes of patients cared for by nurses of different educational levels

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to explore if patient outcomes are different when care is provided by bedside RNs from different educational backgrounds; either diploma, ADN or BSN.

RISKS OF PARTICIPATION

The potential risks from participation in the study are considered minor but could include higher risk of death or failure to rescue depending on the group to which you are assigned. All nurses involved in this study are fully licensed and at equivalent levels of experience. Some previous evidence shows that different levels of educational preparation can affect the rate of negative patient outcomes.

NUMBER OF SUBJECTS PARTICIPATING AND THE DURATION OF YOUR PARTICIPATION

n/a

BENEFITS TO THE SUBJECT

You will not benefit from your participation in the research project.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES

There will be no reimbursement for participation in this study.

COSTS OF PARTICIPATION

There are no costs for participating in this study.

PROCEDURES FOR WITHDRAWAL

You are under no obligation to complete this study and may withdraw at any time or stop the interview.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1. If you have any questions, concerns or complaints before, during or after the research study, or if you need to report a research-related adverse effect, you should immediately contact Susie2310 at 555-555-5555.

2. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you have been told that you may refuse to participate or stop your participation in this project at any time without penalty.

3. If you have any complaints, concerns, input or questions regarding your rights as a subject participating in this research study or you would like more information, you may contact the Institutional Review Board Office, at 555-555-5555.

The purpose of this research study, procedures to be followed, risks and benefits have been explained to you. You have been allowed to ask questions and your questions have been answered to your satisfaction. You have been told who to contact if you have additional questions. You have read this consent form and voluntarily agree to participate as a subject in this study. You are free to withdraw your consent, including your authorization for the use and disclosure of your health information, at any time. You may withdraw your consent by notifying Dr. {insert PI} at {insert telephone number}. You will be given a copy of the consent form you have signed.

So, that is a bit of an overdo, but see, the big difference between an RCT and what has been done in the past is what was done in the past is retrospective and generally gets expedited IRB approval. Why? Because no risk to the participants.

If an RCT on the topic had been proposed back in the day, before the existing evidence existed (no matter what you think of the quality), it might have been easier. Now, you have to make the participants apprised of the possible risks and benefits of each "treatment" (care given by BSN versus ADN/diploma).

And sorry, because I know this is off-topic, but it is legitimate to ask why we can't just do an RCT and be done with it, and the previous few posts I've written do offer a reasonable explanation as to why this hasn't happened.

TiffyRN said:
And back to the consent process. . . Here's a bit (not the whole thing, you'll be bored) from the IRB form I'm required to use. If you don't fill these out with the most conservative view towards protecting the patient, the IRB will just bump it back. Besides writing a section in your proposal about the potential harm to the research population..

If you are the author of a study you need to use your own name not mine. I did not write the proposal example above, nor do I agree with everything you have written.

Yes, qualitative research is easier, but don't be surprised or disappointed when people don't accept the level of evidence as high enough, or when they find valid reasons to critique the studies.

Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

Ok, let me break this down, this was an example, not real, and I don't think your name is Susie2310. I was trying to help you frame why it might be difficult to get a participant to consent to the study you proposed. And I'm not sure where you are getting qualitative from. Do you think a quasi-experimental study is qualitative? No. It is (generally) experimental without randomization.

Qualitative is a whole other topic completely unrelated to this unless I wanted to "explore the opinions of anonymous contributors to a nursing online discussion board". Using open-ended questions and probes.