Just wondering- PARADE article

Trauma Columnist · Oct 29, 2006

I read this today also and feel much of it is right on. Patients have to take some responsibility for their own care. One thing that is dead wrong though and that is that if you take an ambulance, you will be seen quicker. Not necessarily - you will still be triaged and might be placed in the waiting room if you don't meet the criteria to be seen immediately.

Larry77, RN · Oct 29, 2006

I don't remember the specifics but I did read the article and was a little disturbed by the tone of it. It sounded like they were trying to teach people how to "cheat" the system rather than just ensuring you get good care.

lannisz · Oct 29, 2006

I didn't take it that way at all....I think they were basically saying - don't go to an ER if you have a sore throat, wait to see your primary provider...however if you are "spurting blood or have chest pain and are short of breath - call an ambulance." Good advice for everyone. I'm so tired of non-emergencies clogging up the ER. And it's not just the uninsured...plenty of people with insurance misuse the emergency room.

neneRN, BSN, RN · Oct 29, 2006

Like traumarus mentioned, the thing that bugged me was the statement that you will been seen more quickly if you go by ambulance...what makes you seen more quickly is the acuity of your illness. If you come by ambulance with a nonemergent complaint, you will go sit in the lobby and wait like everyone else.

CritterLover, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2006

like traumarus mentioned, the thing that bugged me was the statement that you will been seen more quickly if you go by ambulance...what makes you seen more quickly is the acuity of your illness. if you come by ambulance with a nonemergent complaint, you will go sit in the lobby and wait like everyone else.

true, but if you come by ambulance with an emergent complaint, you probably will get seen quicker. not only that, but the paramedics can start life-saving care.

as much as the 911 calls for toothaches/hangnails irritate me, the people who can't breathe but drive themselves to the er are just as frustrating, though at least you can usually pick them out when they sign in. the lol with the huge mi masquerading as indigestion just sitting out their patiently waiting her turn at triage......had she called an ambulance, she probably never would have seen the waiting room, and we could get started on treating her much sooner. i'm hoping that was what the article was getting at.

Jennifer, RN · Oct 30, 2006

I read the article, and if I am remembering correctly, I think the author wrote that if you have an emergent condition, i.e. spurting blood from wound or chest pains, call an ambulance and you will probably get seen quicker. Which is true for the most part. I will hunt down an MD for a nasty laceration or for pt c/o active chest pains. I do not remember the article actually directing people to call EMS for minor complaints. In fact, the article stressed going to see a PCP for minor complaints. I think things from the article are being taken out of context. I did not appreciate the article telling people to ask the nurse how much longer the wait is going to be. Usually, when I am in triage, it's not the sick ones asking, it's the minor complaints that ask, over and over again, because they are usually waiting longer than the sick pts.

Joe B1 · Oct 31, 2006

I thought the article was fairly balanced and did a good job of illustrating the problems we face. It was a good first step in letting people know the scope of the looming disaster, but it's hard to convey the experience of the modern ED RN, Tech or Physician.

I do take a little bit of exception with "tell the triage nurse everything" because I often end up sifting through totally unrelated information to get to the meat of the matter. But how do you get it across to people that the sore throat he/she had in the spring of '87 probably doesn't have much bearing on his/her chest pain tonight.

Just my 2 cents,

Joe

CoolhandHutch, MSN, RN · Nov 2, 2006

I thought the article was a piece of garbage. The opening story talks about a toddler that dies in the hospital that they try to associate with "Surviving the ER". It was sensational journalism that tried to pull on your heart strings. Go back & reread it and tell me how the "napping surgeon" is the ER's fault, and how the admission to "not the ICU" (maybe it was a step down unit) is the ER's fault, and, I don't think the child was in the ER 6 days later when he/she died. Sure, there are some go tips- get a regular doctor & try to tough out that rash until the AM...but the whole opening of the article ruined the credibility.