New Nurses: Committed to Their Current Jobs—Or Biding Their Time?

By Sylvia Foley, AJN senior editor

It’s no surprise that the recent economic recession caused many older nurses to return to the workforce or to delay retirement and work longer hours, thus easing the projected nursing shortage—at least for the time being. But nurse researcher Carol S. Brewer and colleagues wanted to understand how the recession affected new nurses’ work attitudes and behaviors, in particular those related to turnover. What they found has many implications, both now—although the recession is reportedly over, we’re still in an economic slump—and as the economy recovers.

To learn more, Brewer and colleagues compared data for two cohorts of newly licensed RNs. The first cohort consisted of 983 new nurses licensed between August 2004 and July 2005 who were surveyed before the economic downturn; the second cohort consisted of 1,765 new nurses licensed between August 2007 and July 2008. The survey tool included questions on attitudinal variables in four areas: personal characteristics, work attributes, work attitudes, and job opportunities. The researchers report the results in this month’s CE–Original Research feature, “New Nurses: Has the Recession Increased Their Commitment to Their Jobs?”

Among the key findings:

2016-11-21T13:10:33-05:00March 5th, 2012|nursing perspective, nursing research|1 Comment
Read More

Critical Care: Where’s the Evidence for Central Venous Pressure Monitoring?

Editor’s note: This post is by Anne Dabrow Woods, MSN, RN, CRNP, who is AJN‘s publisher and chief nurse and publisher of Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Research. It was originally published on the blog of Lippincott’s Evidence-Based Practice Network.

I read with interest the article “Central Venous Pressure Monitoring: Where’s the Evidence?” (purchase required for nonsubscribers) in the January issue of AJN. It’s part of a series called Critical Analysis, Critical Care, which will appraise the evidence regarding common critical care practices. So much of what we do in nursing is not based on evidence but on how we have always done things in practice—or on research that was not credible.

This article looks at the evidence supporting the use of central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring alone to guide treatment decisions for patients. According to the article, a 2008 systematic review by Marik and colleagues concluded that CVP is not an accurate indicator of intravascular volume, nor is it an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness (whether a patient will respond to a fluid bolus with an increase in stroke volume). The authors of the AJN article critically appraised the evidence and determined the following:

2016-11-21T13:10:59-05:00January 13th, 2012|nursing perspective, nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

From the Blogs: Negotiating Medicare, Nurses Doing Research, Reader Comments

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOClkw1TNks&feature=player_embedded]
Medicare is confusing for providers who aren’t yet familiar with it. Here’s a Nursetopia post that draws attention to its complexity and notes the useful video above (it’s one of a series of videos on different aspects of Medicare). Those of you who know all about it already: Drop by her thoughtful (and consistently updated!) blog and let her know your own tips on handling the ins and outs of Medicare and Medicaid.

EBP matters. Terri Schmitt at Nurse Story has a frank and engaging post on evidence-based practice (EBP): “Translation of EBP: Why Creating Nurse Scientists is the Way to Improve Patient Outcomes.” Here’s what she promises to cover in it:

  • Research is sometimes far removed from bedside nurses
  • Research is COOL!
  • Research is about PATIENTS and not fame/fortune of researcher
  • Research is critical to practice and there are big gaps that nurses need to fill
  • Bedside nurses may be the most crucial link in research ideas, translation, and practice.

(Shameless plug for related AJN content: See our recent, amazingly useful step-by-step CE series on how nurses can get involved in evidence-based practice.)

Plus a brief note on reader comments: we’ve been getting a lot of great comments lately on this blog, and we’re grateful for that. So thank you. A fair number of the comments were on posts from previous months, such as this post comparing U.S. and Australian health care systems. Is somebody by chance teaching a nursing course that requires students to leave thoughtful, respectful, engaged comments in the blogosphere? If […]

2016-11-21T13:11:21-05:00November 29th, 2011|nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

Nurse Practitioners Are Not ‘Physician Extenders’

By Karen Roush, MS, RN, FNP-C, AJN clinical managing editor

“Physician extender.” It’s way past time to kill that term.

A study published in the October issue of Surgery found that adding an NP to the surgical team decreased the number of unnecessary ED visits by 50% and increased the use of visiting nurse, physical therapy, and occupational therapy services. A Medscape article (registration required) on the study explained the importance of the findings in this way: “According to the researchers, physician ‘extenders,’ such as NPs, help maintain continuity of care while resident work hours are kept at a maximum of 80 per week. . . .”

Sure enough, the stated purpose of the study was to determine if “integrating this physician extender into the surgery team” would improve outcomes and resource allocation. Ouch.

Experts in our own right. Nurse practitioners are not physician extenders. We are highly skilled and educated nurses who provide evidence-based care grounded in the nursing model. We are not “extensions” of anyone. We are colleagues and collaborators, independent clinicians and experts in our own right. Our purpose is to provide comprehensive care, promote health, educate, and advocate. It is not to relieve interns, supplement physician education, or be the low-cost alternative when physicians have to “do more with less,” as Medscape quoted […]

2016-11-21T13:11:27-05:00November 11th, 2011|career, nursing perspective, nursing research|6 Comments
Read More

Toward a Less Painful Death: ICD Deactivation at End of Life

By Sylvia Foley, AJN senior editor

A few years ago, in a letter to the editor of another journal, an NP described how one of her patients, a man on home hospice care, had suffered 33 shocks as he lay dying in his wife’s arms. The source of those shocks, his implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), reportedly “got so hot that it burned through his skin.” The device that had been implanted to save his life caused this man and his wife great distress in his final hours. Device deactivation at the end of life is an option; but in this case, apparently, it had never been discussed.

Stories like this one helped to inspire the research reported in this month’s CE feature, “Deactivation of ICDs at the End of Life: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practices and Provider and Patient Attitudes,” by James Russo.

ICDs, standard treatment for people at risk for life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, work to restore normal rhythm by delivering a high-energy, painful electrical shock. The devices are so effective that people with ICDs often die from causes other than heart disease. But once a person with an ICD begins actively dying, as in the case above, the device may cause needless pain and prolonged suffering. […]

2016-11-21T13:11:44-05:00October 14th, 2011|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