About Jacob Molyneux, senior editor/blog editor

Senior editor, American Journal of Nursing; editor of AJN Off the Charts.

From Flu Vaccine to Abortion Rights: The Same Argument?

By Shawn Kennedy, MA, RN, AJN interim editor-in-chief

bv alvi2407/via flickr

There’ve been articles, blog posts, a court ruling in New York State halting mandatory H1N1 vaccinations for health care workers, and last week a suspension of the mandatory vaccinations by Governor Paterson (who explained the decision in terms of the vaccine shortage). Earlier this month, we ran a poll on this site related to whether or not nurses and other health care workers who work as direct caregivers should be mandated to receive the flu vaccine.  In reading the poll results, I notice that many of the arguments against mandatory vaccination focus on the right to decide about one’s own body—a powerful argument, indeed.

It did make me wonder: do those who stand by this reason for not getting an H1N1 vaccination shot (or nasal mist) recognize that this argument—that one has a right to determine what happens to one’s body—is the same argument used by women who want to choose whether to have a baby or not? At the very least there’s an interesting parallel, even if some people I’ve pointed this out to don’t seem to agree. I’d like to know if others feel there is a difference—and if so, what?

Bookmark and Share

2016-11-21T13:21:29-05:00October 26th, 2009|Nursing|6 Comments
Read More

Sudanese Rumors of Ebola Outbreak a ‘Cry for Help’ – Is the Obama Administration Listening?

By Shawn Kennedy, MA, RN, interim editor-in-chief

ReutersSudanReuters reported Thursday that there is no Ebola outbreak after all in the southern Sudan. Rather, the rumors were started by local administrators and representatives of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) “to draw attention . . . to the acute lack of medicine” in the area, according to Kuol Diem Kuol, an SPLA spokesperson.  According to Reuters, the false rumors that 20 soldiers and three of their wives had died were successful in bringing health personnel to the area to investigate . . . and to provide the desired medicines.

I can’t help thinking that conditions must be really really bad if the Sudanese people went to the lengths of staging a hoax to receive health care. After all, this is a people that has withstood some of the worst brutality in recent memory from civil wars and the genocide in the Darfur region. […]

2016-11-21T13:21:31-05:00October 23rd, 2009|Nursing|0 Comments
Read More

Why Don’t Drug Labels Make the Actual Harms and Benefits Clear?

By Jacob Molyneux, blog editor/senior editor

How can we know if a drug really works? Gary Schwitzer, publisher of HealthNewsReview.org (an incisive Website that grades the quality of health news reporting) addresses this question on his blog this week by drawing attention to a recent perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). It’s called “Lost in Transmission — FDA Drug Information That Never Reaches Clinicians” and it states the problem clearly:

The 2009 federal stimulus package included $1.1 billion to support comparative-effectiveness research about medical treatments. No money has been allocated — and relatively little would be needed — to disseminate existing but practically inaccessible information about the benefits and harms of prescription drugs. Much critical information that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has at the time of approval may fail to make its way into the drug label and relevant journal articles.

The most direct way that the FDA communicates the prescribing information that clinicians need is through the drug label. Labels, the package inserts that come with medications, are reprinted in the Physicians’ Desk Reference and excerpted in electronic references. To ensure that labels do not exaggerate benefits or play down harms, Congress might have required that the FDA or another disinterested party write them. But it did not. Drug labels are written by drug companies, then negotiated and approved by the FDA.

One example given in the NEJM article is the sleeping pill Lunesta:

Clinicians who are interested in (Lunesta’s) efficacy cannot find efficacy information in […]

2016-11-21T13:21:34-05:00October 22nd, 2009|health care policy|0 Comments
Read More

Genomics, Technology, and Nursing: A “Focus on the Whole Person”

UK National DNA Infographic/ by blprnt_van, via Flickr Creative Commons

By Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, editor-in-chief emeritus. Mason often writes for this blog about policy and research issues.

Last week, I attended the annual conference of CANS, the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science, the “research-facilitation arm” of the American Academy of Nursing. The title of the conference was “Technology, Genetics and Beyond: Research Methodologies of the Future.” 

‘Genomics’ vs. ‘genetics.’ I’m not a genomics researcher but I found the sessions enlightening in two ways. First, I admit to struggling with the terminology (and jargon) of the field. I was reminded today that the correct term for the field is “genomics,” since “genetics” refers to the study of single genes and thus limits the focus of study mostly to rare diseases.  Genomics looks at associations among genes in the whole person—a shift in perspective that was enabled by the mapping of the human genome.

Targeted interventions. The second enlightenment came from keynote speaker and senior nurse researcher Christine Miaskowski, a dean and a professor of physiological nursing at the University of California at San Francisco School of Nursing. She noted that this shift to a focus on the whole person is what makes nurses and nursing research […]

2016-11-21T13:21:36-05:00October 21st, 2009|nursing perspective, nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

TCAB: What’s Your Hospital Doing to Improve Care?

By Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, AJN Editor-in-Chief Emeritus

November 2009 report cover

What makes a “good hospital”? A patient might have the best surgeon in the world; but as any nurse will tell you, that patient will die unless the surgeon has a top-notch nursing staff to ensure that the patient is well prepared for the surgery and well supported during the recovery period. Too many hospitals have lost their understanding of what’s essential to ensure great clinical and financial outcomes.  In such hospitals, nurses aren’t included in decision making, have little local authority, are penalized for identifying factors that lead to poor care, and can’t claim excellent team relationships.

The American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Magnet Recognition Program has helped to identify the factors that lead to excellence in nursing care, granting Magnet status to hospitals that provide such excellence. Now an initiative known as Transforming Care at the Bedside (TCAB) has provided the framework and tools for empowering bedside nurses to become  agents for change. TCAB nurses work with other health care team members to improve care processes and effectiveness, focusing on four areas:  the safety and reliability of care, teamwork and job satisfaction, patient and family satisfaction, and “value-added care.” (Increasing the amount of […]

2016-11-21T13:21:37-05:00October 20th, 2009|nursing perspective, nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

Comment ground rules

1. Please be respectful.
2. We moderate all comments.

Content disclaimer

Views expressed on the blog are solely those of the authors or persons quoted. They do not necessarily reflect AJN’s views or those of Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Go to Top