Quality and Delivery of Care

Mandatory Overtime Caps for Nurses Having Effect

State-mandated caps on nurses’ mandatory overtime hours have been effective in reducing overtime hours for new RNs, according to a study.

The study is part of the RN Work Project, a 10-year longitudinal study of newly licensed RNs (NLRNs) that began in 2006 and is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The overtime study drew on data from nurses in 34 states, covering 51 metropolitan areas and nine rural areas.

Past research has demonstrated that fatigue caused by long hours without sufficient rest between shifts can lead to mistakes that imperil both patients and nurses.

“The purpose of capping mandatory overtime is to make hospitals safer for patients and nurses,” study investigator Carol Brewer, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor at the University of Buffalo School of Nursing, said in a news release. “Nurses routinely work long shifts, often as long as 12 hours straight. These laws were intended to prevent hospitals from piling mandatory overtime on top of such shifts, a practice that research shows can increase the likelihood of mistakes. The laws seem to be accomplishing their objective.”

According to the study, in 2010, 16 states had rules restricting mandatory overtime hours for nurses: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. At issue in the study was the extent to which those laws or regulations had actually affected the workplace. Researchers examined NLRNs’ self-reported mandatory and voluntary overtime hours, as well as their total work hours.

They found that in the states with rules governing mandatory overtime, NLRNs were 59% less likely to work mandatory overtime than their colleagues in unregulated states. (Not all states with overtime rules prohibit mandatory overtime, with some simply limiting total work hours.) Overall, 11.6% of nurses said they worked mandatory overtime in a typical work week, averaging 6.1 hours.

In the states regulating overtime, NLRNs worked an average of 50 fewer minutes per week than their colleagues in states without overtime regulations.

Researchers anticipated that caps on mandatory overtime might lead to increased voluntary overtime, thus defeating the purpose of the restrictions to some degree. But the data demonstrated no relationship between mandatory and voluntary overtime hours. Nevertheless, more than 50% of NLRNs reported working voluntary overtime in a typical workweek.

“While safety is the principal objective of caps on mandatory overtime, the laws probably also have a positive effect on nurse retention,” said study investigator Christine Koyner, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor at the New York University College of Nursing. “Nurses have lives and families outside the workplace just like everybody else, and they probably prefer to have a schedule they can rely on. One way to make their jobs and lives more manageable is to avoid mandatory overtime, which should lead to nurses staying in their jobs, and indeed in the profession longer.”

“The states developed caps on mandatory overtime with safety issues in mind, reasoning that fewer mandatory overtime hours would translate into fewer hours,” said study investigator Sung-Heui Bae, RN, PhD, MPH, assistant professor at the University of Buffalo School of Nursing. “What we learned in this study is that it’s working. The tool is effective. Other states with similar objectives can follow suit and expect similar results.”

RN Work Project

According to RWJF, the RN Work Project (www.rnworkproject.org) is the only multi-state, longitudinal study of new nurses’ turnover rates, intentions and attitudes — including intent, satisfaction, organizational commitment and preferences about work. To date, researchers have learned that more RNs work in hospitals than any other settings early in their careers, with 88.3% working in hospitals six to 18 months after licensure and 78.8% working in hospitals 31 to 54 months after receiving their license.

The study has also revealed that 18.1% of new nurses leave their first employer within a year of starting a job, and 26.2% leave within two years. Nine in 10 of those who leave remain in nursing.

Subsequent studies will determine why nurses stay in or leave their jobs, what influences their first job choice, how the job settings they work in vary over time and whether they move in and out of nursing.

The study appears in an online edition of Nursing Outlook and is available as a PDF at http://www.rnworkproject.org.

Original Article by Nurses.com News .

LinkedInShare

CMS Selects Nurses to be “Innovation Advisers”

A New York hospital is testing a new approach to fight obesity. A Boston hospital wants to try a new nursing model. A Montgomery County primary-care clinic plans to expand its pharmacy program that gives one-on-one medication counseling to patients with chronic illnesses.The people who created these programs are among the first 73 “innovation advisers” chosen by federal health officials this month to experiment with ways to provide better health care and reduce costs. Funded with $6 million from the health-care overhaul act, the initiative is one of the first programs of the new Innovation Center at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS.
The advisers are meeting in Baltimore starting Monday for initial training and orientation as part of a year-long commitment, officials said. The health professionals include doctors, nurses, hospital executives and public health and policy experts from institutions in 27 states and the District. The home organizations receive stipends of up to $20,000 to cover some of the costs, such as travel.In the Washington region, the professionals include Rosemary Botchway of the Primary Care Coalition of Montgomery County; Stephanie Bruce, a geriatrician at Washington Hospital Center; and Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University.The overall goal of the CMS Innovation Center is to find new ways to improve health and lower costs, said Joe McCannon, a senior adviser. “That’s the North Star for every program we’re introducing,” he said.Some Republicans have questioned the value of investing in experimentation to produce results at a time of limited resources.Under the program, the advisers work on projects in their respective institutions. The goal is for them to become change agents at their home organizations, while also providing CMS officials with new ideas and approaches. CMS will work with them through the year to refine the projects and help “get some traction,” McCannon said. If the projects are successful, the ideas could then be applied more broadly, such as to Medicare and Medicaid.

Officials intend to select a second group of advisers in the spring, for a total of about 200 professionals. [Read more...]

LinkedInShare

When Nurses Catch Compassion Fatigue, Patients Suffer

As a nurse in the cancer center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Wilhelmina Roney, 26, sometimes feels overwhelmed by demands from patients, even though she tries her best to care for them. During a rough week, patients may die in such quick succession that she barely has time to cope.

Wilhelmina Roney prepares a treatment for patient Frank Ratino at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, which offers a program to help nurses fight compassion fatigue. Photo by Tim Mudrovic

With the help of an innovative program offered by the hospital, Ms. Roney says she’s learned how to handle an occupational hazard she wasn’t prepared for: compassion fatigue.

The Barnes-Jewish program is one of a growing number of efforts by hospitals and nursing groups to help combat the constant assault on nurse’s psyches. In addition to meditation and stress-reduction workshops, such programs include discussions about difficult patient situations, support groups, and staff retreats focused on the emotional aspects of care giving.

Compassion fatigue is a combination of secondary traumatic stress from witnessing the suffering of others and burnout. It can lead nurses to feel sadness and despair that impair their health and well-being. Hospitals are tackling the problem amid a worsening shortage of nurses and concerns that patients may suffer. Compassion fatigue can reduce nurses’ empathy and lead them to dread or even avoid certain patients, raising the risk of substandard care.

Nurses who avoid patients “don’t form the relationship necessary to truly understand the patient, identify their problems early, and adapt therapies to their needs,” says Patricia Potter, a nurse researcher and director of research for patient-care services at Barnes-Jewish. Nurses can also become rude and cynical, which can discourage patients from asking them for help, she says, adding less observant nurses may be more error-prone.

Compassion fatigue has been linked to decreased productivity, more sick days and higher turnover among cancer-care providers. A 2008 study led by the University of Nevada, Reno’s nursing school found that about 12% of registered nurses in the U.S. weren’t working. Of those, more than 27% cited burnout or stressful work environments. High turnover and the subsequent increased workload on remaining nurses can result in higher death rates and reduced patient safety, studies show.

“Recognizing, managing and relieving these issues are critical for nurses and their employers,” as well as for patients, says Holly Carpenter, a senior staff specialist at the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health of the American Nurses Association in Silver Spring, Md.

Compassion fatigue was identified as a special problem for nurses in the early 1990s. The ANA’s Healthy Nurse program sponsored its first workshop on the issue at its annual conference last year, with another planned for this year, and it offers special resources on its website. The New York State Nurses Association conducted its first compassion-fatigue workshop at a hospital last year and is urging hospitals and nursing schools in the state to offer such programs.

Concerned about turnover in the oncology unit and evidence of stress among nurses, three Barnes-Jewish nurse managers approached Dr. Potter and the head of the hospital’s patient and family counseling program, Theresa Deshields, for help in 2009. The problem was especially acute for those caring daily for very ill patients whose survival was in doubt. The nurses seemed susceptible to emotional and physical stress and as a result, sometimes disengaged from their patients.

A survey of 150 staffers found that compassion-fatigue symptoms were high enough to warrant intervention.

[Read more...]

LinkedInShare

Nurses Say Restrictions to ICU Visitation Should be Reduced

The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has issued an alert touting the importance of expanding the presence and participation in ICU settings of patients’ family members and friends.

The AACN Practice Alert describes family members, friends and other supporters as “partners in care” and outlines administrative and practical considerations for nurses to implement less-restrictive access to the bedside in the ICU.

Although official hospital policies often limit visiting hours in ICUs, most nurses in adult critical care units generally permit unrestricted family visitation, according to the AACN. “This inconsistency contributes to conflict among staff and confuses families,” according to an AACN news release.

Hospitals may limit visiting hours under the assumption that family visitation causes stress for the patient, interferes with the provision of care, is mentally exhausting to patients and families or contributes to increased infections.

“These assumptions are not substantiated by evidence,” according to the AACN. “Instead, evidence suggests that unrestricted presence and participation of a support person … improves communication, facilitates a better understanding of the patient, advances patient- and family-centered care and improves staff satisfaction.”

The AACN Practice Alert calls for nurses to remain accountable for ensuring the safety and well-being of the patient, noting they may choose to limit visitation when doing so is in the patient’s best interest.

The AACN advocates the following guidelines for healthcare facilities relating to visitation rights:

  • Establish policies and procedures that support unrestricted visitation in ICUs — ones that allow for the patient’s unrestricted contact with a desired support person while protecting the privacy of other patients and the safety of patients and staff. Policies should support a patient’s right to identify individuals the patient views as “family” and chooses to be partners in care, without discrimination.
  • Provide leadership and support for senior administrators to change restrictive visiting policies and practices, including updating materials to communicate more flexible policies to patients, families and communities and educate them about the policies’ benefits.
  • Welcome a patient’s “partners in care” 24 hours a day, based on patient preference.
  • Allow children to visit when supervised by an adult family member.

According to the AACN and based on available evidence, the goals of policies relating to family visitation within the adult ICU are to:

  • Facilitate unrestricted access of hospitalized patients to a chosen support person such as a family member, friend or a trusted individual who is integral to the provision of emotional and social support 24 hours a day according to patient preference, unless the support person infringes on the rights of others, affects safety and/or is medically or therapeutically contraindicated.
  • Ensure that the facility and/or unit has an approved practice document — a policy procedure or standard of care — for allowing the patient’s designated support person, who may or may not be the patient’s surrogate decision-maker or legally authorized representative, to be at the bedside during the course of the patient’s stay in accordance with the patient’s wishes.
  • Evaluate policies to ensure that they prohibit discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, language, physical or mental disability, socioeconomic status, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.
  • Confirm there is an approved written practice document for limiting visitors whose presence infringes on the rights of others, affects safety and/or is medically or therapeutically contraindicated to support staff in negotiating visiting privileges.

 

Article courtesy of News at Nurses.com

LinkedInShare

Defense Department Needs to Coordinate Revamp of Physician Credentialing: GAO

The U.S. Defense Department needs to establish a process coordinating all current and future efforts to revise credentialing and privileging requirements for physicians at military treatment facilities as well as establishing an oversight process to review credential samples to identify and address areas of noncompliance, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report.

The report was requested by Congress after Major Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, was accused of killing 13 people in a Nov. 5, 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas. His trial is set to begin March 5, 2012.

According to the GAO report, the competence review and credentialing requirements of the DOD, Army, Navy and Air Force “are in some cases inconsistent with DOD’s requirements and each other’s.” As an example, the report cited how the DOD calls for verification of all state licenses physicians have held throughout their careers while the Navy only requires verification for the previous 10 years.

For the report, the GAO said it reviewed credentials for 150 Army physicians and interviewed staff at five Army medical facilities.

In 34 cases, it found that complete career verification of state licenses had not been documented before privileges were granted and, in seven of these cases, there was no documentation of the doctor’s current license, according to the report.

It was also noted that the facilities did not consistently document clinical competence with any peer recommendations or performance assessments. In some cases, performance assessments lacked required data to back up the assessment. The Army also requires a search of malpractice history, but “files often lacked information needed to determine if the MTF (military treatment facility) had documented a complete practice history, as required.”

“Weaknesses in Army requirements contributed to noncompliance and incomplete documentation,” the report concluded. “For example, MTFs did not consistently document follow-up on peer recommendations, in part because existing requirements do not clearly delineate responsibilities for documenting follow-up.”

 

Article by Andis Robeznieks at ModernHealthcare.com

LinkedInShare

Push to Curb Labor Costs Hurts Nursing Home Quality of Care Study Shows

Low Staffing and Poor Quality of Care at Nation’s For-Profit Nursing Homes – The nation’s largest for-profit nursing homes deliver significantly lower quality of care because they typically have fewer staff nurses than non-profit and government-owned nursing homes.

That’s the finding of a new UCSF-led analysis of quality of care at nursing homes around the country. It is the first-ever study focusing solely on staffing and quality at the 10 largest for-profit chains.

Charlene Harrington, RN, PhD, FAAN

The article is published online in advance of print publication in Health Services Research.

“Poor quality of care is endemic in many nursing homes, but we found that the most serious problems occur in the largest for-profit chains,” said first author Charlene Harrington, RN, PhD, professor emeritus of sociology and nursing at the UCSF School of Nursing. Harrington also is director of the UCSF National Center for Personal Assistance Services.

“The top 10 chains have a strategy of keeping labor costs low to increase profits,” Harrington said. “They are not making quality a priority.”

Low nurse staffing levels are considered the strongest predictor of poor nursing home quality.

The 10 largest for-profit chains operate about 2,000 nursing homes in the United States, controlling approximately 13 percent of the country’s nursing home beds.

In recent decades, nursing home chains have undergone a considerable expansion.A number of chains were publicly-traded companies until the early 2000s, when five of the country’s largest chains went bankrupt. Following restructuring and ownership changes, as well as increases in Medicare payments, the largest chains became more financially stable. More recently, some of the largest publicly held chains were purchased by private equity investment firms, which invest funds received from investors, with whom they share profits and losses.

The researchers compared staffing levels and facility deficiencies at the for-profit chains to those at homes run by five other ownership groups to measure quality of care. The 10 largest chains were selected because they are influential in the nursing home industry and are the most successful in terms of growth and market share.

The study found that for-profit homes strive to keep their costs down by reducing staffing, particularly RN staffing.

Recent Medicare cuts in payment rates for nursing home residents – by 11 percent in October, 2011 – may further jeopardize the health and safety of residents if the chains respond by reducing staffing and wages, Harrington said.

The 10 largest for-profit chains in 2008 were HCR Manor Care, Golden Living, Life Care Centers of America, Kindred Healthcare, Genesis HealthCare Corporation, Sun Health Care Group, Inc., SavaSeniorCare LLC, Extendicare Health Services, Inc., National Health Care Corporation, and Skilled HealthCare, LLC.

From 2003 to 2008, these chains had fewer nurse “staffing hours” than non-profit and government nursing homes when controlling for other factors. Together, these companies had the sickest residents, but their total nursing hours were 30 percent lower than non-profit and government nursing homes. Moreover, the top chains were well below the national average for RN and total nurse staffing, and below the minimum nurse staffing recommended by experts.

The 10 largest for-profit chains were cited for 36 percent more deficiencies and 41  percent more serious deficiencies than the best facilities. Deficiencies include failure to prevent pressure sores, resident weight loss, falls, infections, resident mistreatment, poor sanitary conditions, and other problems that could seriously harm residents.

The study also found that the four largest for-profit nursing home chains purchased by private equity companies between 2003 and 2008 had more deficiencies after being acquired. The study is the first to make the connection between worse care following acquisition by private equity companies.

The authors said that more study is needed on the subject. They also said that greater accountability and quality oversight mechanisms would help improve nursing home care, along with effective funding incentives and sanctions for low staffing and poor quality.

UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care.

Article Source: UCSF Elizabeth Fernandez

Study: Abstract
Study Supporting Information:
Appendix A.  Description of the Top 10 For-Profit Nursing Home Companies

LinkedInShare

Measuring Quality Does Improve Doctors’ Care a Study Finds

Wisconsin collaborative says disclosing rankings pushes doctors to try harder

The Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality was founded on a simple premise: To improve the quality of health care, you must be able to measure it.

It is one of the underlying principles in the efforts to provide better care to patients.

Yet the premise that tracking the quality of care truly prods physicians to change the way they practice medicine has been more accepted than studied.

The Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality, started by a group of large physician practices and health care systems in 2003, now can be cited as an example that it does.

A study led by Geoffrey Lamb, a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, compared the care given to diabetic patients by physician practices that belong to the collaborative with the care given by physicians in Iowa and South Dakota as well as national performance measures.

The study found that the collaborative’s members improved overall in every measure, such as monitoring a diabetes patient’s kidney function, which was tracked for more than two years.

“These were changes that really impacted a lot of people,” said Lamb, associate director of the Joint Quality Office of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Froedtert Hospital.

“The thing that really impressed me is the people who performed the lowest when they started had the greatest improvement,” he said. “They cared where they were in ranking.”

That gives additional credence to the long-standing contention that publicly disclosing how doctors perform on various measures of health care quality can result in better care.

“Transparency matters,” said Christopher Queram, president and chief executive of the collaborative.
[Read more...]

LinkedInShare

Medicare Plans See Dollars In Quality Rating Stars

Three Boston-area health insurers are in a race for a decisive competitive advantage. They’re not seeking the usual industry plaudits, exclusive deals with high-profile medical providers, or splashy marketing campaigns.

They’re after the highest mark on Medicare’s quality exam, a one-to-five star rating system that was an afterthought until the 2010 health law tied it to big cash bonuses.  The Medicare Advantage plans’ latest ratings for 2012 will be released Wednesday. Top scoring plans will also win the ability to enroll new members year-round, rather than a few weeks each autumn.

“It’s a huge game changer in Massachusetts,” said Ken Arruda, executive director of Medicare services for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which currently has 4.5 stars. Also in the Boston area, Fallon Community Health Plan and Tufts Health Plan are on the cusp of the top score. Each says their strategy is to reach five stars as soon as possible –a feat only three plans nationwide have achieved so far.

Competition is fiercest in places like Boston, where high-ranking plans are near their goal, but shades of this quality arms race are visible throughout the country. Insurers have rarely competed on quality measures, but as the federal government prepares to unleash an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion next year in bonus payments, the industry is following the money. Star-ratings are bleeding into bottom lines, board meetings, and corporate strategy as the insurers chase top scores.

Wednesday’s announcement comes just ahead of the open enrollment period which runs from Oct. 15 through Dec. 7. About one quarter of Medicare beneficiaries are now in private plans that contract with the federal government to provide health benefits to seniors and disabled people.

The star ratings have been on the books since 2007 and are the only guide to health plan performance available to consumers. Next year, though, is the first in which there is money at stake for the companies.

“To say that the [private plans] put less than optimal resources toward star quality ratings in the past would be an understatement,” wrote Barclays Capital analyst Joshua Raskin. Now, he said by e-mail, he sees a “clear effort on improving the ratings at most companies.”

The federal health law cut $136 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage plans over 10 years, and health plan accountants increasingly see the new star-rating bonuses as a way to mitigate the losses.

The Obama administration has argued that the private plans, originally devised as a way to reduce Medicare costs, have long been overpaid. They cost the government as much as 114 percent of the cost of traditional Medicare patients, without producing better health outcomes for enrollees. The federal government announced in November that it would increase the bonuses. The program is part of a push for quality, led by Medicare administrator Dr. Donald Berwick, that is meant to boost results even as the cuts kick in.

Consumer advocates, such as Ilene Stein, the Medicare Rights Center’s federal policy director, are hopeful that the ratings will improve quality for Medicare beneficiaries. However, Stein cautioned, the Medicare agency will need to oversee the bonus system so health plans don’t game the measures.

Beginning in January, plans with three stars – the average rating – or better, will get bonuses of 3 to 5 percent of their total Medicare payments.  The ratings are based on 36 measures, ranging from diabetes care to the volume of consumer complaints. Twenty-two insurers across the country now boast a 4.5 star rating. Of 396 plans that received 2011 scores, only three achieved five stars: one each in Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin.

Attention to the ratings is new even to the top performers. At Marshfield Clinic’s 5-star Security Health Plan in Wisconsin, the plan’s top administrative officer, Steve Youso, described the high score as a natural byproduct of the insurer’s culture of quality.

But, now executives there are paying attention, too, knowing the top rating is worth keeping. “Prior to March 2010″ – when the health law passed – “[ratings were] probably not a topic of discussion,” Youso said. Now, “our senior executive team is talking about this on a weekly basis.”

There’s a similar dynamic at Massachusetts’s Fallon Community Health Plan, which is still gunning for five stars. “The finance department is more interested in our [quality] results than ever before,” said Ann Marie Sciammacco, vice-president of health services. “Basically, the stars equate to dollars.”

In Worcester County, the hub of Fallon’s service area, five-star plans would earn $8 a month more than 4.5 star plans for a typical member, according to Medicare data. For Fallon’s 28,000 members there, it would add up to $2.7 million a year – money that could be used to reduce premiums and attract more customers.

Sometimes boosting ratings is simple work. One measure the government tracks is the rate of colorectal cancer screening for certain patients. Fallon members get a birthday card from their insurance company that reads, “Every nine minutes, someone in the U.S. dies from colorectal cancer.” Eighty-four percent of Fallon patients get the screening.

Fallon – or a rival plan in the Boston-area – could also benefit from the year-round enrollment perk, which would allow a five-star plan to pick off its competitor’s members.  ”The primary – but untested in this market – competitive advantage of being five stars… is the ability to enroll year round,” said Richard Burke, Fallon’s president of senior care services, in an e-mail.

Nationally, lower ranking insurers, such as the publicly traded HealthSpring, which runs mostly three-star plans, view star ratings as a crucial ingredient to boosting revenues and competing more effectively. Jason Feuerman, a top HealthSpring executive, said in an April interview, “We’re putting the resources in place to make sure we can drive those ratings.”

During a visit that month to a HealthSpring-operated clinic in Philadelphia, administrator Nathaniel Decker pointed out equipment, such as a digital retinal camera, that he said was installed to help boost star ratings by allowing doctors to easily perform one of the tasks measured: eye exams for diabetic patients.

In addition to missing out on the bonuses, plans that consistently score less than three stars could eventually be booted from the program altogether under a proposed regulation released early this month by the Medicare agency.

Plans’ interest in boosting ratings is widespread enough to fuel a niche consulting business. The consulting arm of OptumInsight, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, for instance, says it has picked up 35 health plan clients seeking star-related services. “As soon as you start attaching some money to it, it’s amazing,” said Steve Wood, an Optum management consultant.

In some markets, the star ratings could boost underdogs. Houston-based KelseyCare Advantage, a Medicare plan affiliated with the Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, is on the cusp of a five-star rating. In membership, though, it trails TexanPlus, a Medicare plan operated by the publicly-traded Universal American Corporation, that has 50,000 members – twice as many as KelseyCare. But TexanPlus has only 3.5 stars this year.

KelseyCare President Marnie Matheny is hoping to achieve five stars – and a marketing edge that could level the playing field with a competitor who can do things like rent out the Reliant Center for a Wii bowling tournament to attract customers.

“It will be huge for us,” said Matheny. When patients see “there’s no one else in the market [with five stars], they’ll think there’s something special about KelseyCare.”

 

Article By Christopher Weaver a KHN Staff Writer.  Kaiser Health News

 

 

LinkedInShare

When a Nurse is a Doctor, a Fight over Titles

With pain in her right ear, Sue Cassidy went to a clinic. The doctor, wearing a white lab coat with a stethoscope in one pocket, introduced herself.

“Hi. I’m Dr. Patti McCarver, and I’m your nurse,” she said. And with that, Dr. McCarver stuck a scope in Ms. Cassidy’s ear, noticed a buildup of fluid and prescribed an allergy medicine.

It was something that will become increasingly routine for patients: a someone who is not a physician using the title of doctor.

Dr. McCarver calls herself a doctor because she returned to school to earn a doctorate last year, one of thousands of nurses doing the same recently. Doctorates are popping up all over the health professions, and the result is a quiet battle over not only the title “doctor,” but also the money, power and prestige that often comes with it.

As more nurses, pharmacists and physical therapists claim this honorific, physicians are fighting back. For nurses, getting doctorates can help them land a top administrative job at a hospital, improve their standing at a university and win them more respect from colleagues and patients. But so far, the new degrees have not brought higher fees from insurers for seeing patients or greater authority from states to prescribe medicines.

Nursing leaders say that their push to have more nurses earn doctorates has nothing to do with their fight of several decades in state legislatures to give nurses more autonomy, money and prescriptive power.

But many physicians are suspicious and say that once tens of thousands of nurses have doctorates, they will invariably seek more prescribing authority and more money. Otherwise, they ask, what is the point?

Dr. Roland Goertz, the board chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians, says that physicians are worried that losing control over “doctor,” a word that has defined their profession for centuries, will be followed by the loss of control over the profession itself. He said that patients could be confused about the roles of various health professionals who all call themselves doctors.

“There is real concern that the use of the word ‘doctor’ will not be clear to patients,” he said.

So physicians and their allies are pushing legislative efforts to restrict who gets to use the title of doctor. A bill proposed in the New York State Senate would bar nurses from advertising themselves as doctors, no matter their degree. A law proposed in Congress would bar people from misrepresenting their education or license to practice. And laws already in effect in Arizona, Delaware and other states forbid nurses, pharmacists and others to use the title “doctor” unless they immediately identify their profession.
[Read more...]

LinkedInShare

Hospice Nursing – Providing compassionate and dignified end-of-life care

 About Hospice Nursing

Hospice is relatively new to the American healthcare industry. It was originally championed in the 1950s and 1960s by Dame Cicely Saunders, a British nurse, social worker and doctor in London, England. Saunders envisioned a form of end-of-life care geared towards pain control, symptom management, seeing the patient as a whole person, and death with dignity. She opened St. Christopher’s Hospice in London in 1967, and it remains a historical cornerstone of the modern hospice movement.

In 1969, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss physician living and working in the United States, published the seminal book On Death and Dying, and her famous “five stages of grief” (denial, depression, anger, bargaining, and acceptance) have been widely used — and widely criticized — over the years. The work of these two pioneering women is still seen as the birth of the modern hospice movement, and many others have built upon their theories and practices during the ensuing decades.

Hospice Nursing Today

Hospice nurses provide compassionate end-of-life care for individuals who have chosen to stop pursuing treatment for a condition that has been deemed incurable and terminal by a medical doctor. Hospice nurses manage pain, help to alleviate symptoms, and provide comprehensive physical, psychosocial, emotional and spiritual support to patients and families.

Hospice services are generally delivered in the patient’s home, and the hospice team may consist of a nurse, home health aide, spiritual counselor, volunteer companion, social worker, and other specialized caregivers. A ‘hospice benefit’ is covered by Medicare and most other insurances. For the patient at home, hospice does not cover round-the-clock care, so family members, friends or private-duty caregivers must fill those gaps, especially as the patient becomes less able to perform basic forms of self-care.

Some patients and their families may elect to have hospice services provided in a skilled nursing facility or nursing home, wherein the hospice team provides an extra “layer” of care.

A small number of free-standing residential hospices do exist offering patients a home-like environment with round-the-clock care.

Qualifications of the Hospice Nurse

Hospice nurses receive specialized training (mostly on-the-job) in symptom management, pain management, end-stage disease processes, culturally sensitive care, psychosocial and spiritual care, grief and loss issues, patient education, advocacy, ethics and legal issues, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. Hospice nurses are educated at the associate, bachelor, master and doctoral levels, with some using their advanced degrees to focus specifically on hospice and palliative care.

Not For Everyone

Many nurses who work in hospice say that there is nothing else in the world they would rather do. That said, every nursing specialty has its idiosyncratic challenges and rewards, and hospice is no different. As noted in the interviews accompanying this article, those who choose to work in hospice must be comfortable with the death and dying process, and must also be conversant with the ways in which the dying patient and their loved ones require support and nursing care. Hospice is a special branch of nursing, and for those nurses who find their calling in hospice, there are great rewards to be experienced on both the professional and personal levels.

- – - -

The following are comments and experiences of two nurses working in Hospice today.

Laurel Lewis, RN
Hospice Partners of Southern California

What brought you to hospice?

I have always had great comfort with the topic of death and dying. I had wanted to be a hospice nurse after graduation, but I thought hospice nurses were “old” and that I didn’t have any death and dying experience.
[Read more...]

LinkedInShare