Patient Nurse Ratio

[ambobam]

The large patient to nurse ratio is giving us a bad rap.

Patients and their families do not feel well cared for (and on some occasions are actually not well cared for) when we are running in and out of their rooms trying to get to our next patient.

When I was a student, I believed that the patient to nurse ratio should be limited to 5 patients:1 nurse (or less.) I remember that people would chuckle or roll their eyes at the idea.

Now that I am a nurse, I still FIRMLY believe that the patient/nurse ratio should be 5:1 or less.

It's a quality issue.

It's a care issue.

It's a safety issue.

As far as I know, CA is the only state with a limit. This needs to change in the other 49.

[Ruger8mm]

Oh come on now. I mean the 67 residents to 1 RN ratio here at the LTC facility I'm at is very reasonable (please tell me you can hear the sarcasm in my words).

[Lev, MSN, RN, NP]

Which is why I will not accept an acute care job with anything more than the 1:5 ratio.

[LightMyFire]

What's worse is that the acuity is not factored in.

[ambobam]

Amen!

[ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP]

1:6-7 here on a med/surg unit. One really bad days, a charge nurse could end up with eight pts or more.

It is crazy unsafe.

[ambobam]

We are in the exact same situation where I work

[ED Nurse, RN]

The current models that are used to determine number of staff/fte's do not factor in acuity, which is very hard to do. Until units sit down with the data and convince hospital administration that this certain time needs x amt of nurses and this time frame needs x amt of nurses, nothing will change. Also, groups like the ENA, ANA- need to come up with better models that hospitals can use, because they have more pull in making changes.

Until then, people need to work as a team to get the job done which a lot of the time is not the case. Change will come, but don't expect it too rapidly.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

I really think this is the most important issue facing nurses today. It's really horrific what some nurses are being asked to take on. It's not even just about this being bad for nurses. It's extremely bad for patients as well.

I know the powers that be think they are saving money by doing this. But in the long run it costs everyone money, because it causes such burn out. Training new nurses is not cheap. It costs in terms of medication errors and patient harm. It costs in terms of patient satisfaction.

[ambobam]

Yes, I know it won't be happening soon. (But hopefully it will happen)

Luckily, I have found a home in a unit practically full of those willing to help one another

[ScrappytheCoco]

In the Emergency Department I have cared for 4 ESI level 1 pts at a time. That's 4 ICU patients that would be 1:1 or 1:2 on the floor. Really? I also regularly care for up to 4 ESI Level 2s. There really needs to be some legislation regarding this to give us some legal recourse.

[Nurse SMS, MSN, RN]

I was a cardiac PCU nurse for four years. When I first started 3:1 was the norm with occasional 4:1. Then it drifted to 4:1 with occasional 5:1. When it got to where 5:1 was the standard, my stress level went through the roof. An educator position away from the bedside fell in my lap and I grabbed it with both hands. I really miss that direct patient care. REALLY miss it. However, My own well being was suffering in those conditions. I wasn't able to be the nurse I want to be.

My quality of life has skyrocketed since I made the move. I have regrets but none of them lead me to go back. The current algorithms are not compatible with me. I saw this again and again and again. Nearly constant turnover of experienced nurses and brand new ones diligently plugging away trying to get through it. I am healthier now mentally and physically but I feel a literal sadness and sense of loss sometimes.