Posts Tagged CNO
Wade Schuette at Perspectives in Public Health submitted a lengthy and thought-provoking comment on my post a few days ago about bad nurse-managers. He suggests the issue, by default, needs to be addressed through professional organizations like (in Ontario) RNAO or nationally, CNA, or in the United States, ANA. He wrote:
I’d say it’s more than an “indicator of poor patient outcomes” … it’s a direct cause.
It’s fascinating, in a morbid way, that a unit with a leak in the ceiling and wet floor would be cited by JCAHO as a patient risk, but a unit with a manager who clearly damages the psychological-safety and open feedback teamwork required to catch errors and deliver safe care is allowed to continue without comment.
So, assembling the fragments of thought here, it would seem that (1) nurses (or anyone) could substantially improve patient care if they could take effective action that would remove rattlesnakes, wet floors, and dangerous managers from the system.
(2) For anyone to try this alone, unaided, by pushing UPWARDS is a proven no-win approach.
(3) Don Berwick is the right guy to lead an effort to put teeth in a move to deal with such managers, and CMS certainly has the clout to threaten to cut off all medicare funding for a hospital that refuses to listen. So that part is in place, finally.
(4) So how can individual nurses contribute to this nascent action coming to fruition. Probably, that’s what professional organizations are about and for.
Conclusion — it’s within nurse’s professional duty to lean on and assist their collective professional organizations to put pressure on Berwick to “do the right thing”, and to rally other nurses to join them in this move to improve patient care AND, as a side effect, to improve working conditions, retention, cost-effective care, hospital survival, etc.
Is that logic solid?
I would agree, with the important caveat of recognizing the limitations of professional organizations. (And incidentally, I wonder if he would include unions in that group of professional associations?) They move glacially, think globally not specifically, and if they are anything like the RNAO, they tend to be somewhat a reflection — unintentionally, I’m sure — of the nursing “leadership”, i.e. managers, educators and such, not front line workers. At the end of it, I fear, the poor nurses I wrote about would only be helped only in a very indirect way, which is to say in the short or even medium-term , practically not at all.
However, there is one particular way organizations like RNAO (and its provincial/state/national counterparts) can be useful: in the development of best practice guidelines. The RNAO, for example, has developed The Healthy Work Environments Best Practice Guidelines, an enormously useful document which addresses this very issue: what is best practice for nurse-managers?
But again, these are best practice guidelines: evidently the experiences of the nurse on the floor varies widely according to institutional culture and values. I suspect in places where the contribution of nurses is minimized or demeaned, best practice of any sort would be thrown out the window.
Another thought: it is never clear to me how nurses moving into managerial positions somehow forget they are nurses, and are still subject to standards maintaining patient care and safety (to return to Wade Shuette’s point), and bad management pretty well precludes providing it: I mean, from a strictly regulatory point of view, becoming a nurse manager does not (or rather, should not) absolve from making decisions that adversely affect patient care, and hospital policy or the priorities of the human resources department does not automatically over-ride professional obligations. Should nurse managers be held professionally accountable for their managerial style when they create poor work environments? Absolutely. However, I have yet to see any nurse manager be formally disciplined by my own professional body, the College of Nurses of Ontario, for poor management. As long the CNO (and its equivalents in U.S. state nursing boards) essentially see themselves as extensions of the management disciplinary process, this is not likely to happen.
I think the best answer, in the end, is as another commenter wrote
we must vote with our feet. Speak our truth politely and respectfully, for our own good, i.e., the knowledge that we’ve spoken and not suffered in silence before slinking away, and then seek out healthy work environments. Not to do this would be hypocritical; we are about health promotion, and need to live and practice what we teach.
It is important to recognize that nurses are not responsible for sick environments and cannot “fix” the negative energy around them. We can speak, and offer to be part of the solution, but there are those who would turn the problem back on the victims, and many nurses, ever eager to help and to be team players, might embrace a problem that is not rightly theirs. A manager who exudes negative energy, and a toxic work setting, are that way for a reason, which others may or may not ever understand. But what it sure is that they are not as they are solely for want of our magic fixes, and we are not likely to save the day with heroic efforts to “help” the leopard change its spots.
Walk, my colleagues! You and your patients deserve better!
Excellent, and I couldn’t agree more. And it has the added benefit of causing real pain to a health care corporation. Bad management has immediate monetary consequences. Filling vacancies, and then hiring and training new nurses is not without real costs: I have heard figures of upwards to $50K per nurse for orientation, incentives, and lost productivity. Enough losses of this sort (one would hope) should be enough to twig someone higher up something is amiss. I know, in practical terms, this is not realistic for many older nurses, who are unwilling to give up seniority, benefits and pension. They have too much invested in their present employer to leave, and I know some managers willingly, even enthusiastically, exploit and abuse this commitment. Younger nurses, and especially new(ish) graduates have far more flexibility, especially if they work in large urban centres like Toronto which have a multiplicity of employment choices.
[UPDATE: Apparent cat-induced post title malfunction corrected. The cat has been spoken to, sternly. The cat apparently doesn’t care. She writes: djpofsaha’of;alllllllllllllllllllguuuuuuuuujf’ashf. So there.]
So I was reading an issue of the CNO* rag — The Standard — just to catch up. Usually I read the back pages first, the ones that contain the disciplinary decisions, just to make sure none of my classmates were featured.** (Hello, schadenfreude.) Usually, in fact, that’s all I read. It probably speaks to the sick and fevered condition of my mind that I am more interested in salacious detail then, say, the latest edict from my regulatory body.
Oh well. Anyway this insert falls out, which says the College is considering changes to its bylaws, and wants my input. Ahem. From little ole me?
The College wants to 1) raise the fees for registration for nurses returning to the profession and for nurses from foreign countries to $1500 to verify their credentials and 2) impose a fee of a $1000 to reinstate nurses who licences are suspended.
This sort of thing drives me batshit. Because it so bogus.
In the first place, if the goal is to encourage nurses into the profession, a $1500 fee for “credentialling” is probably not the best way to go about it. Which brings me to the second point. Where the hell did they get the figure of $1500? Is this a number that accurately reflects the actual cost of this “credentialling”? Or a number they pulled out of someone’s . . . hat? I would have been happier if the College had said, “We’re going to charge $1457.94.” Then I would know that the fee had actually been costed out.
Or to put it another way, $1500 represents 37.12 hours of nurse at top scale (in Ontario) — or almost exactly a week’s gross salary. You can’t tell me it takes 37.12 hours to complete a task that a trained squirrel with a mouse and internet access could probably do in half an hour.***
The deal is that when the College changes its by-laws, it needs to “consult” its members, by which they mean sending out crappy questionaires in which you don’t have the slightest hope in hell of making an informed contribution. Is $1500 reasonable? Damned if I know. But using the squirrel analogy, I’m sort of doubtful.
Oh, and don’t further insult my intelligence by calling a $1000 penalty for reinstatement a “fee”. It’s a fine for bad behaviour. At least be honest and call it what it is.
*College of Nurses of Ontario. The organization that regulates nurses in Ontario. Situated on the ugly end of an unfashionable street in downtown Toronto (or is it the other way round?) Bane of all nurses.
**This has actually happened.
***Including the affixing of the College seal thereto.