To the Editor:

Tsk, tsk, Sandy Ray (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 18, “Question 1 would hurt MVH”)! So many erroneous facts, exaggerations, and scary language.

I have been a nurse for more than 40 years, and under no circumstance would I refuse to take care of a patient or delay their care. The information and language coming from Partners, hospital associations, and God only knows what other heavily funded corporations, is insulting to any practicing nurse. We as nurses have been voted the most trusted profession every year, for good reason. We are not asking for anything but the ability to give better care to our patients. I always ask people when they ask me about this bill, which nurse do you want taking care of you? The one with four patients or nine?

The arguments opposing this bill are wrong. It is not rigid, it will not slow up care — if anything it will speed up care — and it is designed by bedside nurses, therefore putting it in the hands of nurses, not administrators.

I am asking my friends, family, neighbors and past patients to vote YES on Question 1.

 

Helen Green, R.N.

West Tisbury

4 replies on “Toward better patient care”

  1. Although, every RN I know would never refuse to care for a patient, the way this is written you will not have the ability to make that decision anymore. If you are at your capped ratio, you will simply not be able to take on an additional patient. If you do, the hospital will be fined $25,000.

    Check the Leapfrog data. Most Massachusetts hospitals already exceed those in California, where this has been in place for years.

    1. This part of the bill is confusing. But a nurse actually is “allowed” to take more patients at their discretion. And certainly that would happen in an emergent, life-threatening situation. The hospital fine will be given to a facility if an investigation into the hospital’s practices is initiated by a nurse filing a complaint against the hospital.

      The hospital is not simply handed a $25,000 fine, a lengthy investigation and remediation plans are the first steps following a complaint.

      1. If you ‘re talking about the part of the law that states “would be suspended during a state or nationally declared public health emergency.” Then you are incorrect as even something as severe the marathon bombing was not considered declared a public health emergency.

        Even if nurses are allowed to “flex” their assignments to pick up an additional patient, you are still forgetting that hospitals have 37 business days to get thousands of positions filled, oriented, and trained. California had nearly five years to accomplish this same task.

        Most hospitals in our state meet the proposed ratio and you will be penalizing the majority and the taxpayers for the few who don’t. Patient safety is important but this is not the solution.

Comments are closed.