The ANA is worthless, looks down on floor nurses, don't join!

[DannyBoy8]

The ANA has decided to turn their backs on RNs in Massachusetts. The people of Massachusetts have spoken and want to vote on the matter of nurse-patient ratios this November. The ANA, through their local Mass. affiliate, has decided to oppose the nurses who put this on the map.

A short history. The ANA has been parading around a similar bill for over a decade with zero success. They can't handle the fact that another organization, let alone a union, has found some traction. The ANA has decided to play politics and stand jealously in their way.

If you aren't a member, keep it that way. If you are a member, cancel your payments and send an email to leadership. If you're a student, don't let their reps off-the-hook and ask the tough questions when they come to your campus.

Quite simply, this is some petty B.S. from a do nothing body of suits who sit in their DC offices while floor nurses break their backs with ridiculous assignments.

Disclaimer: I have no membership with any of the nursing organizations who support or oppose this bill.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

I have never had any use for the ANA. They tend to look down on ADNs, and they support all kinds of political causes I oppose. Now they're standing *against* mandated staffing ratios? What is WRONG with those people?

[nursel56]

Their position on staffing ratios is the dumbest thing they could have possibly done. I've researched that particular issue, and nowhere could I find a vaguely comprehensible reason for their position. It fractured their organization, with many state groups voting to split from the mothership and became the impetus for the creation of a true union, National Nurses United.

[Ruby Vee, BSN]

As near as I can tell, they look down on BSNs and ICU nurses as well. I've had a few rather disconcerting conversations with representatives of ANA as they toured various hospitals where I've been employed.

[FurBabyMom, MSN, RN]

So, to counter everyone here - if everyone who disagreed was a member of the ANA, was involved and voted (professional organization and personally for elections)...I bet that things would look different. Just remember, it's a choice to be uninvolved and apathy to the process shouldn't translate into anger with the results.

I'm very active in my professional organization, which is not the ANA. I'm active at the state and local chapter level - maybe nationally eventually. It is what you make of it. It can be a "on paper only" thing, where you get some CE credit here or there, or you can be involved and get much more out of it. I've learned so many things I never would have learned if my only source of experience was my job.

In NO way am I defending this, just making a point I feel is important to make.

[kakamegamama]

So, to counter everyone here - if everyone who disagreed was a member of the ANA, was involved and voted (professional organization and personally for elections)...I bet that things would look different. Just remember, it's a choice to be uninvolved and apathy to the process shouldn't translate into anger with the results.

I'm very active in my professional organization, which is not the ANA. I'm active at the state and local chapter level - maybe nationally eventually. It is what you make of it. It can be a "on paper only" thing, where you get some CE credit here or there, or you can be involved and get much more out of it. I've learned so many things I never would have learned if my only source of experience was my job.

In NO way am I defending this, just making a point I feel is important to make.

My thoughts exactly.

[Penelope_Pitstop, BSN, RN]

As near as I can tell, they look down on BSNs and ICU nurses as well. I've had a few rather disconcerting conversations with representatives of ANA as they toured various hospitals where I've been employed.

Do they favor anyone? I'm genuinely asking. Until right now I've not given the organization much thought.

[AnnieNP, MSN, NP]

Would she get the double edged joke if we sent Pamela F. Cipriano, PhD, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN a can of Campbell's Chicken alphabet soup?

I just laughed out loud, picturing a UPS Van full of cans of soup being delivered from all over the country!!!!!

[Julius Seizure]

In case anybody else is wondering what the heck the ANA were against - here is some more info.

[FurBabyMom, MSN, RN]

In case anybody else is wondering what the heck the ANA were against - here is some more info.

When I read the link you shared, it makes sense to me why the ANA might oppose the ballot measure. I don't live in MA, but I don't know that I would feel safer as a patient with assignments made based on a legal requirement. I've made clinical assignments for coworkers before (while covering for my manager). There's almost an art to it - considering the individual patient needs AND the more broad department/unit needs. That balancing act is difficult enough when decisions are made primarily on clinical knowledge, competencies and clinical judgement.

There are ALREADY so many instances where non-health care providers are providing regulation and oversight of things they do not begin to understand, I am not sure that we really need additional legislation. Besides, changing what legislation and regulation already exists is exceedingly difficult - what happens when there is a further shift in acuity and the numbers need adjusted but because something has been made law, it's incredibly difficult to modify it?

I'm not sure there is a great answer for how to handle staffing issues. Maybe legislating that hospitals have to not only "have" but use and implement feedback gained via a shared governance model to drive staffing decisions? How many things do we "do" that are essentially toothless because they are required for some regulation or for Magnet, but we don't do anything based on recommendations from a clinically centered committee? We can recommend just about anything if there's some way to back it up, but that doesn't mean administration will implement it. Create some impetus for them to implement and follow through on a better process.

I work in a care area where patients are never more than 1:1. Sometimes there's two nurses per patient (my facility uses RNs to scrub and circulate, some facilities only use surgical techs in the scrub role). In most states, it is not state law or regulation that each patient undergoing invasive procedures require assignment of one RN to care for them. Some facilities exist where RNs are assigned to float between rooms or "share" rooms (this is not the standard of care). There are significant requirements from CMS that basically address this for facilities accepting Medicare or Medicaid patients.

[MunoRN, RN]

In case anybody else is wondering what the heck the ANA were against - here is some more info.

The problem with the Massachusetts ANA position is that they appear to suggest that their ballot initiatives propose requiring that staffing be based on workload rather just number of patients, which would make sense. The problem is that the Massachusetts ANA has never actually proposed or supported a bill that requires facilities to staff based on workload. The only bills the Massachusetts ANA has promoted are those that place no requirements at all on facilities for patient staffing, whether it be workload or ratio based.

[DannyBoy8, RN]

Let's be clear, this ballot initiative is not equivalent to the 'government' having its hand in anything, as the ANA wants everyone to think. This is a grassroots effort by nurses that has been endorsed by the the people. The people will vote and hospital executives, administrators, and managers will listen.

That's wonderful your facility has proper ratios - most don't. There will still be plenty of time to practice the art of patient assignments within a set of safe parameters. Some poor MB nurse won't have 12 patients to care for, women in labor will have the attention they deserve, and neonates will be less susceptible to infection.

The ANA lives in some fantasy land with these staffing committees. Even if they existed, the members (especially managers) would be in an incredibly awkward position and most definitely be facing significant pressure from their superiors. It's unfortunate, but there isn't a way to empower them to make authentic staffing decisions with their directors and executives just down the hall.

[DannyBoy8, RN]

In case anybody else is wondering what the heck the ANA were against - here is some more info.

The ballot initiative won't be taking away nurses involvement in assignment making, instead it will ensure they have enough nurses to make those assignments!