MikeyBSN

In many areas of nursing, I hear nurses call each other "sister". As a man in nursing, they call me and other male nurses "brother." I work in the U.S. but I know it's actually more common in other countries. From what I have read, the "sister" designation comes from Catholic nuns who ran hospital wards and were referred to as "the Sister." Also, I read that in some countries in Europe nurses are not called "nurses" but "sisters." Regardless of the origins, what do you think of this practice? Is it used where you work? Should it be kept? I think it helps keep nursing a unique and tightly-knit field by conveying the idea that fellow nurses are sisters, and brothers.

I read that sharing salary information is good for workers and professional sectors in general. There are other salary surveys out there, but I wanted to know what the Allnurses members make based on their location and experience. This is for direct care nurses only. If you want to participate, please answer the questions below. I will also try to post a general poll. State: NJ Geography (i.e. urban, sub-urban, rural): sub-urban Degree (i.e. ADN, BSN, MSN): BSN Employer type (i.e. hospital, school): Hospital Years of Nursing Experience: 7 Union member (yes/no): no Salary per hour: 37.00 This applies to full time and part-time nurses, not per diem since benefit costs affect base salaries. Do not include shift differentials or certificate differentials. I'll go first.

I am considering obtaining an MSN focused in nursing education with the goal of teaching nursing courses. I would like to use an online method with flexible hours since my current schedule is very busy. The concern I have is that the online schools require you to find your own practicum site and mentor, and some do not allow you to use your current employer. Did anyone have a problem finding a good mentor and practicum site? What happens if I am not able to find a mentor or practicum site? Has anyone run into this problem? Do traditional schools set their students up with mentors and sites or it the process pretty much the same as using an online school? Thanks in advance.

Yes, this is a clear HIPAA violation. Why? 1) the date and time of the birth is in the medical record, which makes it PHI. Plus, 2) the picture of the baby is a clear identifier. My son could be easily identified from his baby pictures alone. You employer could be charged with violating HIPAA, through your actions.

Hi there, you should know that the seroconversion rate for nurses suck with needles from an HIV + patient is very low - and that was before post-exposure prophylaxis. If the patient was on anti-retorviral therapy then that decreases your chances of seroconversion. Taking medication yourself also greatly decreases that chance that you will seroconvert. Overall... I think your chances of seroconversion are very, very slim. I hope this helps make you feel a bit better. Just keep an eye out and, in the worst case, get treatment quickly.

It sounds like you are not cut out for that kind of nursing. A circumcision is a fairly routine and common procedure; I'm not sure why a nurse would have a problem with it. Maybe you should try something that does not involve physical illness (bloods, pain, etc.).

There is no "nursing shortage"; my guess is that this is some myth that some educational institution told you before plunging you into tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

This isn't true.

Generally, no. Physicians in a hospital are often independent contractors; unlike nurses who are often employed by the hospital. The hospital administration is your "boss". That doesn't mean a physician cannot make a complaint against you, but you don't work for them. You must, of course, follow the policies and procedures of the hospital. But a physician isn't the boss of you just because he or she has "MD" or "DO" after his or her name.

No. What I said was quite clear: nurses cannot be punished by under the federal statute. They can, however, face ramifications under ancillary state laws and employer procedures for certain actions that might also fall under HIPAA. And I disagree with you that the point is a purely intellectual one. HIPAA violations carry the threat of federal jailtime and extensive civil monetary damages that might not be available under any of the other rules or statutes that apply to nurses. I can think of situations in which an employer might "remind" a nurse of federal prosecution and fines for a HIPAA violation in an attempt to get her to leave quietly and not file any kind of legitimate action against the employer. And I'm sure that many of the nurses here who think they might have violated HIPAA are worried about all of the potential consequences including, oh I don't know, federal jailtime. Finally, even if the post is "purely intellectual", it still serves to remedy the widespread misconception held in nursing that staff nurses are susceptible to statutory HIPAA penalties.

True, with respect to a covered entity. One must be a "covered entity" to be prosecuted. HIPAA defines covered entities as certain health plans and a few other groups, the one closest to nurses defines covered entities as health care providers who submit electronic health claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Since most nurses do not even have provider numbers, I do not see how they can be covered entities. The law imposes on the covered entity a fine or other penalty for violating HIPAA through their "workforce", which includes nurses. But I still do not see how the individual nurse is a covered entity. As for the examples provided by Esme, it looks like one was a provider and the other two were ultimately punished under state privacy laws. I suppose the feds could always threaten HIPAA, but I don't know of any published opinion by any court that construes "covered entity" to include staff nurses.

I see a lot of HIPAAphobia in the nursing realm. I have read several stories about nurses terrified of being fined or being exposed to criminal penalties for HIPAA violations. I have read in nursing text and literature about HIPAA violations and consequences. I am, however, skeptical of the idea that a run-of-the-mill staff nurse can be charged with a HIPAA/HITECH violation. To be clear, a nurse can certainly be punished by the BON, fired, and subject to civil suit under state law (or even criminal law depending on the state and the circumstances). I am, however, hard-pressed to find any justification for Uncle Sam punishing a nurse under HIPAA/HITECH. The way I see it, HIPAA/HITECH cannot be used to enforce penalties against an individual staff nurse. Can anyone prove me wrong?

If your post includes everything you posted on FB, then it is not a HIPAA violation. There are no patient identifiers, no name of the facility, and no PHI. You may have broken some school policy, but you did not violate HIPAA, and probably did not violate any BON regulation or state law (though it is impossible to know this for sure without knowing what state you are in). Nurses get so worked up about HIPAA. It is true that a HIPAA violation can get you fired, in trouble with the board or even slapped with a civil suit (though not for violating HIPAA itself). Nurses cannot, however, be punished by the feds for violating HIPAA/HITECH, at least not in my estimation. I do no see how HIPAA applies to the run of the mill staff nurse. Nurses should be more worried about protecting patient confidentiality as a part of the profession then a scary acronym created by the feds.

I would make sure you can cover it during an interview.

This post is 100% inaccurate. You have a right to your own information under HIPAA and there is no witness requirement to obtain it. Further, doubt a student nurse is even covered under HIPAA. It is, at most, a violation of hospital policy (and it would stupid and arbitrary policy at that).

Unfortunately, the same programs that were designed to help people pay for tuition has made tuition unmanageable.

Do you have a job now? I would try to get a job in the health care field, especially at a hospital. Then you could take some nursing classes and see if your employer will help you out with tuition. If you can't get employer help then I would wait for the community college option. 90K is a staggering amount of debt, even with a good job. In my view, it's just not worth it. Plus, that is the kind of debt that you can't get rid of, even if you file for bankruptcy. Also, it's not a bad idea to volunteer in a hospital or look for a job as a tech or aide to see if you even like nursing. I read horrid advice from some "career services" person trying to help a student on another forum. The student said she was looking for a degree but didn't like "gross" things. So, naturally, this career services person recommended nursing because it's "in demand". Don't fall victim to that nonsense, especially not to the tune of 90K. Make sure you will like what you choose to do.

I noticed that they are giving newborns Heb B a few hours after birth. Why are we giving a vaccine to a child before it has an immune system? I mean, I suppose there might be some response, but it just doesn't make much sense to me. Is there anyone who works the nursery who knows the justification for this?

Hi Barbra, the annoying answer to this question is "it depends." If you work as an employee then you need to see if you are covered by the center. Since you said you want to work independently, then that often means that you need to purchase your own insurance. You really have three options for the insurance problem. First, you could buy your own liability insurance to protect yourself as an individual. The second option is to form an LLC and practice through your LLC. The LLC rules depend on the state you live in and you need to do research on LLCs before you start. If you don't run your LLC correctly then it won't protect you if you get sued. Finally, you could carry personal liability insurance and have an LLC for the most protection. It really depends on how much protection you want to have from liability. You aren't required to protect yourself at all.

This question often turns into an age-old great debate. Personally, I would never recommend that anyone obtain an MSN if they have never practiced, especially when the MSN program is a clinical program, such as an NP or an APN program. There will be people who will tell you that they know a guy who knows a girl who got her NP degree without setting foot on a floor and became a great NP. Sure that happens, but not so much in my experience. The best NPs tend to be the ones with practice under their belt. That's what the program was originally designed for, and I don't think you can skip that step. Even if you want to go into administration, few nurses will respect an administrator who cannot identify the smell of MRSA emanating from a "no-nursing" home patient's bedsores. So... in my view, you should go with the ABSN program.

Hi Steve, sorry to hear about your friend's trouble; I thought I would add my two cents. First, with respect to GrnTea, the post is not entirely accurate. Tort law requires a breach of duty, a causation, and an injury. However, HIPAA does not fall under a common law tort scheme. HIPAA is a government regulation that imposes fines and penalties and not, as GrnTea implies, a private right of action in a malpractice suit (at least not yet). The government can fine both an individual and the hospital for a HIPAA violation, even if it is accidental and even if there was no injury. However, the government takes various factors into consideration when assessing a fine, such as whether the release was intentional and whether a party was injured. With respect to criminal penalties under HIPAA, they often do not apply to inadvertent release of PHI. Of course, this is all assuming that the lab results had patient "identifiers" on them. Unfortunately, HIPAA hell is not the only thing she needs to worry about. The facility can punish her if she broke an administrative policy or procedure. Moreover, the State Nursing Board may decide to invoke disciplinary proceedings is she violated nursing ethics. As for the union rep, I don't see why anyone would not want a union rep in a disciplinary hearing with them. Even if the union rep sits and says nothing, the real advantage to having one is that you have a witness. I hope this helps.

Can you send me a PM and tell me what your book is about?

Completely not analogous to this situation.

I remember this being quite a debate back when H1N1 was going around. I have always been very much against a blanket mandate for health care professionals when it comes to flu vaccine. I don't consider myself a vaccine conspiracy theorist, but the flu vaccine is very different from other vaccines, and all vaccines have some inherent risk involved. Unlike other vaccines, you need to get the flu vaccine every year. Each injection brings its own potential for complications. So instead of rolling the dice once over a five, ten or twenty year period like other vaccines, you are rolling that die again every year. The efficacy of the flu vaccine is also concerning. Although the flu vaccine is fairly effective when they pick the correct strain, the chance of picking the correct strain is only about 70 percent, not very high as far as I'm concerned, especially when it brings health risks that weigh against that 70 percent chance. Moreover, the flu vaccine does not, and never will, produce heard immunity. This is a medical fact. Where it is true that at least one study indicated a decrease in influenza among nursing home patients when staff are vaccinated, that is certainly not a reason to force every patient care provider in every setting to get a flu vaccine. I think infection control is important, but I simply don't see the logical support for this mandate. Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but you cannot ignore that fact that the flu vaccine is big business, and big business always exerts some undue influence. Even more concerning is the independent research supporting vitamin D as a way to help prevent all influenza infections. So not only is the "flu vaccine" largely ineffective as far as vaccines go, but may be completely unnecessary. I know some people support a mandated flu vaccine, many with good intentions. But I refuse to adopt the idea of getting jabbed with a vaccine every year just because one study shows it might help prevent influenza in one group of patients is sound practice, especially when that vaccine is not particularly effective and there are other non-invasive, non-pharmacological methods available. Nurses and doctors often complain about patient demanding antibiotics and other treatments that they really don't need, instead of taking a more conservative approach. Why should be so different with our own bodies and our own practices?

Just curious, would you pay for a course that focused on the basic of lawsuits (why and when a patient can sue you), along with documentation strategies and techniques to CYA? What if the course allowed for a deduction on your nursing insurance, like a driver's safety course on your car insurance?