Example 1 -
Unit census: 30 patients.
Staffing grid allocation: 5 nurses, 2 nursing techs (assistants).
Ergo: 6 patients to each nurse. 1 tech assisting.
Example 2 -
Unit census: 12 patients.
Staffing grid allocation: 2 nurses. Zero techs.
Ergo: 6 patients to each nurse. No techs assisting.
Why the drop in staffing? The patient:nurse ratio hasn't changed.
Do you think it makes any difference to me if there are 30 patients on the floor or 12 - I'm still juggling 6 patients!! If it doesn't make a whit of a difference to me, then why am I expected to "make do" with no assistants when there are only 12 patients? Does having "12 patients" somehow = "less work than" having 30 patients?
They are called "Nursing assistants" - not "floor assistants" - for a reason.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to "avoid" work here. Merely wanting to point out that all management can speak about is "patient satisfaction" and "customer service". Does their rhetoric match the implemented plan?
I don't think so.
I've asked this question at work - mostly my peers/colleagues. 98% of them pretty much shrugged their shoulders, implying that it was a rule set in stone.
I don't think it is. All I need to do, is compile evidence.
I'm working on some of my own (the simplest being 'average response time to call lights').
I invite suggestions and ideas from y'all...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know I know. It also seems most places plan their pt/nurse ratio simply by bodies, never taking into account the acuity. I mean I could have 9 patients and it be an easy smooth shift. Or I could have 3 that work my ass off. So I am sure acuity should play a role.
I happened to look at our hospitals floor ratios and they don't get a tech until there are 15 patients on the floor. Could it be the same with our institution?
Post a Comment