Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
By Lynne LeNoir
I have always wanted to be a nurse for as long as I can remember. My grandmother always said that when I grew up I would be the best nurse ever. She even bought me my first regulation nursing cap at the old Park Snows in Davis square. I was five years old. She would proudly brag to her friends as I stood by, “this is my granddaughter, she is going to be the greatest nurse when she grows up.” Such hope and promise for the future. My grandmother saw in me a future advocate and protector, a healer; someone to comfort people in need.
I have been a registered nurse for 38 years and am a proud member of the Massachusetts Nurses Association. My colleagues and I have taken care of some of the sickest people. People who have gone from being healthy one minute, to clinging to life the next; either due to a catastrophic event, such as a heart attack or cancer; or being a victim of a violent crime or freak accident. All of them needed an advocate, someone to help heal and protect them when they were at their most vulnerable.
I am asking people to vote yes on question one in November because it is for your protection.
Independent studies have shown that:
#1. For every patient added to a nurse’s workload, the likelihood of a patient surviving a cardiac arrest decreases by 5% per patient.
#2. For children recovering from basic surgeries, each additional patient assigned to a nurse increased the risk of readmission by a shocking 48%.
#3. There is a 29% higher risk that a patient will die within 30 days of having general surgery at hospitals that don’t have patient limits.
California set safe staffing, patient limits in 2004 and the results have been universally positive.
I would also like to help debunk some of the information out there that people may find confusing regarding this bill.
- “Hospitals just do not have the money for this”
While hospitals claim they cannot afford to provide patients with safe care, it is important to know that this is an industry that generates more than 28 billion in revenue each year and that hospitals in Massachusetts post surpluses in excess of 1.1 billion annually. Many of these funds go into buying other hospitals or for construction. Not direct patient care or hiring nurses.
#2.“Hospitals will close or will be forced to close vital services, if this becomes law.”
These same claims were made in California 14 years ago, before the law passed there. No hospitals or services closed as a result of the law passing. In fact, California hospitals have thrived as a result and have posted significantly higher profits than Massachusetts hospitals with lower costs and better patient outcomes.
The ANA (American Nurses Association), that has been advertising frequently, and other organizations like them are made up of executives, whose salaries are dependent on maintaining the status quo.
We must take the high ground on this battle. We must advocate for the safety of not only our patients, but for ourselves as well.
For more information regarding this bill: ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts-Question-1,-nurse
And:
nurse.org/articles/federal-starring-ratios
www.nationalnursesunited.org/ratios
Journal of Nursing Care. Quality, 2014
Robert Kane et all, Evidence report/ technology assessment for agency for healthcare and quality, AHRQ publication No. 7 E005, May 2007
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Rigid staffing ratios are not the best practice for patient safety or Massachusetts. Massachusetts is already a leader in patient safety and outcomes. There are many checks and regulations in place that ensure patient safety such as the Joint Commission accreditation and inspections.
Care already costs too much. This proposal would require hospitals to hire an additional 4,500 nurses. Hospitals are already struggling to hire qualified candidates. Hospitals would be forced to shift nurses from outpatient services to inpatient care.
The proposal as written cannot be implemented without adding undue burden to the smaller and community hospitals. You cannot schedule when an accident occurs that causes many patients to be admitted to the emergency room. How do the smaller hospitals handle the spikes in patients?
Please do talk about the CA nurse ratio. That law for one was implemented over many years, the MA proposal is not. It has not
In 2009 the California Healthcare Foundation conducted a review of the CA ratio. Their conclusion was, “staffing changes have created challenges and adjustments for some hospitals, particularly with regard to logistics of meal break compliance and the roles of RNs. The leaders interviewed did not notice significant changes to quality of care, though emergency departments became bottlenecks at some hospitals. leaders reported difficulties in absorbing the cost of the ratios, and many had to reduce budgets reduce services or employ other cost-saving measures.” Also to note, the California Healthcare Foundation is an independent, nonprofit philanthropy that focuses on improving the health care system for the people of California, especially low-income Californians.
Let us be clear, this is the Nurses Union putting itself first. The union went on strike against Tufts under the guise of patient safety when it was blatantly clear they only wanted more pay and prevent their pension from turning into a defined contribution plan. Do not be fooled in supporting their own interest.
This is not a Union issue. I really want people who oppose question 1 to stop making it one. Anti-union rhetoric is a blatant, intentional distraction from this issue. It is about patient safety. It’s common sense. So when you say “care already costs too much” think about what that really means…are you REALLY trying to imply that caring for patients….people…..HUMAN BEINGS…safely…will just be too expensive and therefore NOT WORTH IT? Do what’s right, what’s safe, and what’s ethical and VOTE YES ON QUESTION 1!
Donna, My issues is that we are mandating the throwing of bodies at a problem with no evidence of benefit. We should be setting standards of OUTCOMES and allowing hospitals to innovate and determine what works best for them. This can be people, it can be technology, it’ll likely be both. The general population, who knows very little about healthcare in practice, should not be legislating staffing levels.
Its not fair to say that unions are not driving this. if you look at the contributions, (https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_Nurse-Patient_Assignment_Limits_Initiative_(2018)) you will see that the vast majority of the spend came from the Massachusetts Nurses Association
(btw – this is not the same matt as the other poster)
Don, to quote ANA “Living Legend” Leah Curtin, in the American Nurse Today on Safe Patient Limits “Fortunately,a great deal of study and research has been done in the last two decades to help determine safe care… there is really no justification in saying, ‘We just don’t know. ‘ Or ‘The data are inconclusive.’ ‘Or it is a judgement call’ These statements, every one of them, are at the veryleast, untrue.”