Jump to content
phuretrotr

phuretrotr

Member Member
  • Joined:
  • Last Visited:
  • 292

    Content

  • 0

    Articles

  • 5,270

    Visitors

  • 0

    Followers

  • 0

    Points

phuretrotr's Latest Activity

  1. phuretrotr

    What would you have done? Episiotomy

    Well not NO one... Sometimes the fetus becomes distressed and have prolonged decelerations. When baby is crowning and crumping at the same time, an episiotomy may be needed... And be the better option opposed to a c-section.
  2. phuretrotr

    What would you have done? Episiotomy

    I always have to wonder though, if numbers are worse in developed counties, because developed countries are more likely to have a system to collect data on outcomes, thus putting forward more negative outcomes. The same is true with other things, such as STI's. One country may have a higher incidence of STI's but is that because more people in that country report/treat the STI rather than the other country who doesn't because the cost to treat/report is more than they can afford. Or is it really because developed countries have higher incidences of STI's. I'd like to think it's a little bit of both, however I also think the numbers would be a little bit more equal if both used the same system to collect and report.
  3. phuretrotr

    Circ boards

    When we do circ's, we don't strap the arms down. We just swaddle them. I don't really see a need to strap them down.
  4. phuretrotr

    Can LPNs work in the delivery room or maternity?

    In my hospital, LPN's do not take any L&D. On only very rare occasions, we will have a LPN float to our unit to take mom-babies, but even then, the LPN's only get to do care on moms; no babies. So while there may be opportunities out there, I wouldn't rely solely on getting in that unit or even if you do, being able to fully care for the patients as your scope/hospital may limit you on what you can do.
  5. phuretrotr

    The difference between ADNs and BSNs

    I do understand that as well, however, it is known that hospitals are shifting to "only BSN need apply". So with the logic of saving money, how much are you really saving if you have to go back to get your BSN from an ADN? Suppose it takes 3 years for an ADN degree, perhaps more, then having to go back to school for your BSN for another year or two. You may be out of a job with an ADN because of the hospital choice to hire only BSN. This means that you are losing at least a year of wages by having to go to school for an extra year than straight BSN students because you could perhaps not get hired and on top of that you have to pay the extra two years of tuition to obtain your BSN. I'm all for saving money but it doesn't seem as though doing ADN to BSN is saving a whole lot if you do not get hired as a ADN, which seems like a pretty big problem seeing as a lot of ADN graduates are having a hard time landing a job, thus the whole point of ADN's being upset because they are RN's who cannot get hired because they are without a BSN. It is dumb, I agree, don't think I don't. It is not my choice to make ADN's go back, I'm just merely pointing out that with all the knowledge and history of ADN opportunities, what really are the benefits of choosing ADN over BSN?
  6. phuretrotr

    The difference between ADNs and BSNs

    I never said nor thought that ADN's don't have those type of courses/skills or that they were socially awkward and poorly educated. I am simply giving another valid reason why hospitals may prefer BSN's, because they SHOULD have had courses that taught them to be more competent than the average joe at these skills. With ADN programs, it may be hit or miss as all schools are different and not all of them include these types of classes because they are not required to do so. BSN programs on the other hand are required to include them to get approved of educating students to have a Bachelor's in Science degree of Nursing, not a Bachelor's in some other field, not science or nursing. It's great that people have other degrees before completing an ADN program. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't science. And by insisting that ADN programs are more often than not as demanding and as long as BSN courses, why again did you opt for the ADN in the beginning? Of course older nurses may not have had a choice in the matter because ADN programs were all that was around, but that isn't the case for the newer nurses with ADN's. Also, I think ADN's who have had some type of nursing career prior to hospitals hiring exclusively BSN's, should be able to opt for grandfathering in. Like you said, most nurses who have had their ADN for a couple of years know more than the new grad BSN. That isn't a secret and applies to everything. If a person has been doing something long enough, even without formal education, they are going to be more knowledgable about their job than someone who has never worked in that field. But what I'm getting at is that I am not knocking your experience as an ADN in nursing and I'm actually on your side. However, a Bachelors degree in any field is looked upon as being more knowledgeable than an Associates on the basic level. Not even nursing experience per say, but you have more knowledge about real life situations, not just medical/nursing. If you can't agree with that then you might as well let any person who has not gone to school take the NCLEX and if they pass, they can be a nurse. After all, if they know just as much as any ADN or BSN about nursing, had education about nursing, what makes them not a nurse? It would be to invalidate the extra learning it takes to get a Bachelors for everything to say that associate degrees are just as good. Obviously the world and hospitals, don't see it that way.
  7. phuretrotr

    The difference between ADNs and BSNs

    Actually, it's funny you bring physicians up. In the last few years, more students accepted into med-school, surprisingly, had degrees in english and the like rather than an undergraduate degree in science. The "suspected" reason for this slight shift in acceptances of these types of students with these non-science undergraduate degrees was that these students were more well-rounded and had better interpersonal/communication skills than those with undergraduate science degrees such as biology. Physicians that had non-science undergraduate degrees were thought of to be more personable with other healthcare professionals and patients, treating them with respect and were able to effectively work as a team. (They also seemed to have nicer handwriting.) Perhaps nursing followed suit? Those who had completed an ADN program and went back for your BSN and claim to have not learned anything, maybe you did? Maybe you just didn't know it? Maybe you actually didn't learn anything, known or not? Maybe you did yourself a disservice by not listening/learning things in those "useless" classes. Maybe it made you, or COULD have made you have better social skills? I'm not saying that it made you SMARTER in nursing/critical-thinking related skills or that a BSN is better, but maybe hospitals require it, not so you are better able to interpret labs or put in a foley, but to better work with a team or talk with other people with respect/empathy? The classes to obtain your BSN are claimed to be "hosh-posh", but many who claim that also claim that they went to nursing to "help people". If you think that non-science related nursing classes are hosh-posh, what do you think of the "non-nursing" activities in NURSING? Such as sitting with your patient and just talking? It's not a skill that is the nitty-gritty of science, so does that not interest you? The courses to get a BSN, such as a history or a religion class, are not about learning science, it's about learning about cultures, people, and life. Just the same, nursing is not only science either. Instead of dreading it, you could embrace it and be thankful you could go to school and be a nurse, let alone have a bed to sleep on. This really is an over-debated topic that actually doesn't matter. Get mad at your choice of school and hospitals if you want to disregard my take on the subject.
  8. phuretrotr

    The difference between ADNs and BSNs

    Patient safety first. No more dilaudid. Better have Narcan on hand instead. When respers. are better, and LOC more alert based on the objective findings, then we can think about giving more pain meds based on the patient's subjective pain rating. One is not more important than the other I do not think (as far as subjective/objective data), but are just merely different. I don't NOT believe a patient is having pain with the objective data shown, but you can't let them die... It could translate to this topic, as the subjective data of people saying it doesn't matter whether you get an ASN or BSN and then there is the objective data where studies have shown that more BSN prepared nurses result in better outcomes. Both may be true, but neither are mandatory. The above example, IS mandatory as you would be charged with negligence/malpractice if you gave more dilaudid with the objective findings. That's why hospitals are able to decide whether they want ASN and BSN or JUST BSN. It seems hospitals (perhaps insurance companies as well) like to side with the objective data, where data is studied, because if there is legitimate data that would improve health, why wouldn't you choose it? Why choose to employ ASN, where the argument is that people SAY that the ASN is just as good when you can have "better" (whether believed or not, but backed up by research), with the BSN? Once it has been researched/proved that ASN are just as safe, and BSN's do not lead to better outcomes, then we can think about what people think first hand of ASN programs and their ability to produce the same BSN outcomes. Both types of data are relevant and neither are to be false, but fact and belief in society, most people tend to side with fact first rather than belief because everyone has their own belief whereas with enough research, there could be an actual fact, and people want the true/real answers as opposed to just what people think/believe.
  9. phuretrotr

    Survey on infant male circumcision

    What is your problem? You have been the most condescending, arrogant, poster I have ever come across on allnurses. A simple, "No, I believe circumcision to be unnecessary" would suffice. However, you have continually come to calling people names and say people are "slicing up penises" as if people intend to hurt their children. The same could be said about you being dedicated. Except you are dedicated in a much different and volatile way. You always come back to make an unnecessary comment, not adding anything to the conversation. If you perhaps put your dedication elsewhere instead of putting people down based on your own personal opinion, you might actually make somewhat of a change in an issue you apparently feel so strongly about. An example is actually putting forth legitimate reasoning behind your statements. Research studies are an example. Better yet, you could conduct your own research. Anything is better than what you are currently doing, especially if you want anyone to change their beliefs to match yours.
  10. phuretrotr

    CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

    All in all, the thread has turned into nothing logical. Everything is refuted with personal opinions or ignored, not even hitting what was being discussed. But you know what? I'm happy. Happy because the CDC is supposably biased so that parents can continue to make the decision for their children. So there you have it. Cry all you want about it and claim beliefs are facts, but it isn't changing anything soon. Decide what you want to do. Stay out of other people's decisions for their children. Plain and simple. If you don't get it/are too arrogant to admit that not everybody should share your view point then maybe you should focus on yourself and not others, because you obviously have bigger problems than if other parents choose for their child's penis to have a foreskin or not.
  11. phuretrotr

    CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

    Thanks for explaining further and I do agree in the thinking that most males are happy with their penises. I don't think one way or the other is right or wrong but some people do think that, whether it be for health or cosmetic reasons. This is why I think there should be a choice in the matter. There is research supporting health benefits (whether it is accepted or not) from circumcision however there are risks associated with circumcising infants, we know this. But the main concern I see is that the infants do not get to choose for themselves whether they are circumcised or not. I understand this and am open to the parents making the decision to not circumcised their infant. I have no problem with that. However, I feel it is a bit of backtracking when some say they want their child to decide on his own, but when faced with medical benefits of the procedure and the reasoning for the timing, they are quick to say that the medical benefits are untrue/biased/the same outcomes as with non-circumcised children/adults. So I have a hard time believing that the real reason they do not circumcise their child is because they want the child to decide for themselves. From the responses on this thread, it's pretty clear that some do not believe any health benefits are associated with circumcision, thus the real reasoning hiding behind "I want my child to decide". I am in no way claiming anyone thinks this, but this is what I get from this entire thread. Atlas, the point of the thread, should the CDC educate non-circumcised males about circumcision, seems like it would be a hit with those that "want their child to decide for themselves". But then we are faced with responses like, "the CDC is biased", "the CDC has inaccurate data", "the CDC should mind their own business", etc. etc. If parents really wanted their child to decide for themselves, wouldn't they like that the CDC teachs the child about the possibility of circumcision for their health? Well, no says the consensus. Why? Possibly because they believe the CDC is biased/has untrue data? If parents who opt to not circumcise their infants believe that circumcision provides no health benefits, why say you want your child to decide for themselves? If you don't think circumcision helps anything and tell your children there are no benefits from circumcision, why would you say you are letting your child decide? There are no medical benefits from botox, but if your child decided they wanted botox to have higher cheek bones like the rest of their class, would you let your 10 year old get botox? No? Why not? If you believe there are no medical benefits to circumcision nor botox, you would not let your child endure either. Right? But what do I know? I just want parents to continue to decide on their own for what their child has/doesn't have. I don't want intactivists to determine what everyone should and shouldn't be when they are clearly biased. I want parents to decide, based on their thoughts, not someone elses. I really would appreciate a well thought-out reply from someone who has something to say about what I have brought up because lately, good points are ignored because of the lack of substance in rebuttal.
  12. phuretrotr

    When pushy CNAs show how little they know

    I would be mindful of where you stand right now. The OP is no newbie here, you on the other hand, this is your first post. Not knocking your experience but it isn't the best start by being new to a site and being so condescending. AFWIW, I'm pretty sure that, yes, the OP has 21 years of experience.
  13. phuretrotr

    When pushy CNAs show how little they know

    This is strange. OP vents a little about CNA, gets attacked by mob of angry strangers for being too cruel about CNA... Who's attacking who?
  14. phuretrotr

    CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

    Unbelievable. So now a circumcised penis is wrong? Wow. It amazes me how judgmental people can be when they are protesting for infants to be able to decide for themselves. You want people to make decisions for themselves unbiasedly but sit there and call one of the options wrong? Yea, not biased at all... At least the people who are pro-choice for the parents are not criticizing someone else body. This is exactly why it should be left up to the parents to decide for their children because we have ding-bats, for lack of a better word, who call their beliefs, fact.
  15. phuretrotr

    CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

    If the CDC needs to mind their own business, so do the pro-foreskin community. Let parents decide for THEIR children!
  16. phuretrotr

    When pushy CNAs show how little they know

    I'm not against OP for anything. This is an isolated incident where the OP got to stick it to the man, which they though was funny... Know one knows who this CNA is except the OP. The CNA could be a nightmare and by the looks of it, the CNA probably is if the OP gets a small piece of amusement out of this. I think some are jumping the gun in thinking that the OP is being too hard. Maybe she isn't being hard enough... No one will know because the OP is the only one who actually knows the person.
×