viral2010

In our unit there is no anonymity. We follow the "talk to me not about me" rule. When nurses or other staff approach our manger about issues, there is an immediate sit down with the staff in question and thiings are worked out face to face. If nurses or other staff members have issues with each other, it should be worked out face to face, this is the adult way of correcting interpersonal issues.

I would never consider putting patients at danger like that. Its not the safe thing to do.

I would advise working longer than a year in the ICU prior to trying CRNA. This is a program, like the NP programs, that builds on your nursing experience at the bedside. The more bedside ICU experience that you can attain will only serve you better in the long run. Also, CCRN is a great idea. Our local programs all but require it for admission.

I trained as a Peds Crit Care NP at UPenn. I do have the background and training but not to the level of a physician:D

That's great for you but I feel sorry for all of the kids you misdiagnose, mistreat, and put at risk without physician oversight. Once again, there is no reason for a dnp/NP to function in total autonomy. This puts patients at risk because they are receiving suboptimal treatment from individuals who dont have the education or training to function completely autonomous.

Ok. What does this tell me? I'm ignorant so use little words for me:bowingpur What does this have to do with the fact that I don't feel that autonomy for a NP/dnp is the right thing?

THere's not going to be a time where physicians aren't available. I have insurance and live in the good ole USA!

You shouldn't take this so personally:)

I dont need a citation to back up the fact that healthcare is a priviledge not a given right. I didn't go to school for my NP to provide free healthcare to individuals who feel the need to bring their child to the ER for a sore throat or an earache when there are perfectly good pediatricians in the community with actual offices. The ER is not a primary care center and when the parents start referring to the ED doc as their pediatrician, something is wrong. By the way, where's your citation that they don't:redpinkhe

definitely your opinion

Def your opinion....

I know for a fact that many of them do.....

Its not about personal freedom...its about patient safety. It's not unconstitutional. Can you show in the constitution where suboptimally trained providers should be able to care for patients on their own? The people who are ruining healthcare are everyday people, not unlike yourself, who utilize the system for their own benefit. People with 150 visits to the ER because they don't want to pay for the physcian's service and know they won't be turned away due to nonpayment. People who feel as though they are entitled to healthcare but shouldn't have to pay for it. Also, you shouldn't take this so personally.

Always have been and always will be... I'm very glad to have a physician backing me up in the clinical arena. The physcians I work with are extremely well versed in nutrition as it something we deal with on a daily basis be it TPN or tube feeds, as an aside. They, physcians, will always be the standard for patient treatment. There is no way in hell I would ever let my family be treated by a NP/PA in autonomous practice whether they have a dnp or msn. I want to know that a physician has their hand in the matter.

In the field of medicine, physicians will always be considered the gold standard in patient treatment. They are educated/trained years beyond that of NP/PA and that will always be the fact. They will always be the person where the buck stops so to say.

The largest persentage of nurses who start in the PICU are new grads. I would advise PICU also due to the extensive list of diagnoses that are seen. Very interesting!

what is a "neutrality agreement" and how does it affect workers? a 'neutrality agreement" is a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union's attempt to organize its workforce. although these agreements come in several different forms, common provisions include: gag rule: while most neutrality agreements purport to merely require an employer to remain 'neutral," in reality they impose a gag order on speech not favorable to the union. a company, including its managers and supervisors, are prohibited from saying anything negative about the union or unionization during an organizing drive. employees are only permitted to hear one side of the story: the version the union officials want employees to hear. no secret ballot election: most neutrality agreements include a "card check" agreement. under such an agreement, employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election monitored by the national labor relations board (nlrb). instead, the employer pledges to recognize the union automatically if a certain number of signed union authorization cards are collected. experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards, often being falsely told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, non-binding "statements of interest," requests for an election, or even tax forms. access to premises: neutrality agreements commonly give the union permission to come on company property during work hours for the purpose of collecting union authorization cards. this differs from the guidelines set by the nlrb and the courts, under which an employer has no obligation to, and may actually be prohibited from, providing the union with such sweeping access to its employees. access to personal information: neutrality agreements frequently require that the company provide personal information about employees to the union, including where employees and their families live. armed with a company-provided list of the names and addresses of each employee, union officials can conduct home visits to pressure employees to sign union authorization cards. captive audience speeches: employees may be forced to attend company-paid "captive audience" speeches pursuant to neutrality agreements. in these mandatory forums, the union and management work together to pressure employees to sign up for the union. sometimes it is announced that the union and company have already formed a 'strategic partnership," making union representation seem a foregone conclusion. in one facility owned by johnson controls inc., it was strongly implied that if workers did not support the union's organizing effort, they risked losing potential job opportunities. (a copy of the text of a captive audience speech is available by clicking here.) employers are often pressured into neutrality agreements by union picketing, threats, or comprehensive "corporate campaigns." some employers are pressured into neutrality agreements by other companies who are acting at the behest of union officials. a neutrality agreement itself may require an employer to impose the neutrality agreement on other companies with whom it affiliates. even more ominous, there is a growing trend in which state and local politicians pass laws mandating that employers who wish to do business with the state or locality must sign neutrality agreements. in one notorious case, the san francisco airport authority mandated that any concessionaires who wished to lease space at the airport had to first sign a neutrality agreement. that governmental interference in private labor relations was held to be federally preempted, and was enjoined, in aeroground, inc. v. city & county of san francisco, 170 f. supp. 2d 950 (n.d. cal. 2001). unfortunately, many politicians are still attempting to require neutrality agreements as a condition of contracting with the government or of obtaining grants, even though most, if not all, such requirements are unlawful under federal law. the bottom line is this: employees' rights of free choice are sacrificed and lost under so-called 'neutrality agreements." instead of being able to freely choose for themselves whether they desire union representation through a secret ballot election, management and union officials work together to impose unionization on workers from the top down. the foundation has established a neutrality task force to help employees who find themselves forced (or potentially forced) into unwanted union representation as a result of these devices. the foundation stands ready, willing and able to help employees who are victims or potential victims of these schemes. workers who wish to request legal assistance may write us, call us toll-free at 800-336-3600, or send an e-mail message to [email protected].

How many nurses nationally vs number of nurses in unions?

Without physicians in control of medicine, there will be patient deaths, patients being mistreated for their illness, and many lawsuits over malpractice. I'm not sure how in the past few years my NP colleagues have seen fit to undermine medicine. It amazes me that a group of educated people can let themselves be lured into thinking that 2-3yrs of NP schooling will allow them to provide the same services as those of physicians who have trained 3x or more longer. Just fascinating.....

Your opinion.

Not looking for response...just showing the other side of things as it should be:)

She's no more ridiculous than the unions that oppose her.

Nope. No problems doing my job at all. Been doing for about 14yrs now. I have a problem with people thinking they know as much as physicians and then lauding that on their patients. That is exactly how patients die.