Do preceptors and preceptees benefit by moving from an
ad-hoc preceptoring program to a formal one?
Lorri Freifeld, editor-in-chief at Training: The Source for Professional Development, recently reported some exciting findings from a formal nurse preceptor program initiated by Aetna, Inc.
Following a 6-month pilot, Aetna launched a formal nurse preceptor program in January 2013. At its outset, the formal program provided 65% of new hires with preceptors, incorporated beefed-up workshop offerings, instituted weekly progress reports between preceptors and their supervisors, increased communication of best practices, created a community calendar of training events, and implemented on-demand training and follow-up with recently preceptored new hires.
The result after three months?
- 53% of new hires were managing a full caseload
- 100% of preceptors said soft skills training was sufficient (up from 0%!)
- 97% of preceptors felt the tools and resources were effective
- 67% of new hires reported having adequate time with their preceptors
And after six months?
- Turnover was down 50%
- 100% of new hires had a preceptor
- 150 new preceptor volunteers had joined the program
Pretty impressive and immediate results from a new program. Kudos to Aetna for committing to a professional approach in this most important phase of a new hire’s experience.
To read the full article, click here.
To see related HCPro offerings, including The Preceptor Program Builder, click here.
As a leading publisher of nursing and other healthcare products—including books, newsletters, webinars, and online training—HCPro is a great place to publish. If you have an idea for a book or other product that will benefit the profession of nursing, we would like to hear from you.
At HCPro, we value our expert authors as the foundation of our business and strive to build long-term relationships with them. We collaborate with our authors—a diverse and knowledgeable group of people focused on creating a personally satisfying and improved healthcare workplace for themselves and their colleagues. The nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers who read our books appreciate our focus on quality, from project inception through collaborative development, publication, and distribution.
Whether you want to write a book, blog post, or article, or create a webinar, we’ll provide you with the feedback and tools you need to be successful. Contact us for more information.
Some topics we’re interested in: Managing intergenerational teams, delegation and supervision across the care continuum, charge nurse insights, creating a culture of safety, effective communications.
Boston is widely recognized as the vanguard of New England healthcare, employing tens of thousands of nursing professionals who care for hundreds of thousands of patients each year. Now Massachusetts is taking on one of the scourges of the nursing profession: Horizontal hostility.
Currently in a third attempt to pass the Massachusetts legislature, the Healthy Workplace Bill is aimed directly at creating procedures and penalties for bullying by co-workers and managers. If the bill is passed during the current legislative session, Massachusetts will earn bragging rights as the first state in the nation to enact a comprehensive workplace-bullying bill.
For an in-depth look at Bella English’s Boston Globe feature on bullying and this landmark bill, read it here.
You can also download an exclusive excerpt from the second edition of Ending Nurse-to-Nurse Hostility. In the excerpt we prepared for Nurses’ Week, Kathleen Bartholomew, RN, MN, discusses the faces of horizontal hostility and bullying in nursing school and offers positive ways that students can be supported and mentored as they begin their nursing careers. Download the excerpt here.
Happy Nurses Week! Today kicks off the annual celebrations and May 6 is officially National Nurse Recognition Day.
Do you feel recognized? Have you been celebrated by the organization where you work? Share your experiences in the comment section below.
A few years ago, I wrote a story for HealthLeaders Media (a sister company of HCPro) about the annual celebration of Nurses Week. I titled the article “Do we still need Nurses Week?” and used the question as a way to examine whether nurses receive the recognition they deserve all year long.
“[E]ach year, health systems make a big deal out of Nurses Week. Nurses are thanked, exalted, and much is made of the touchy-feely aspect of nursing. There’s a guilt complex at work here-one-week recognition permits nurses to be ignored and under-valued for the remaining 51 weeks.”
As we give gifts, enjoy celebrations, and feast on platters of cookies this week, let’s also make sure we take time to discuss the crucial role nurses play in patient safety. If you’re a manager, take time to talk about not only the caring side of your staff’s work, but their highly skilled, critical thinking professionalism.
“Let’s frame this year’s Nurse Week festivities less in the context of nurses as angelic heroes (they are) and celebrate the highly-skilled professionals who possess critical-thinking, problem-solving, and care coordination skills that ensure patient safety every day.”
Editor’s note: HCPro is celebrating and recognizing nurses all week long with special giveaways, prizes, and promotions. To kick off the celebrations, all of our nursing products are 20% off! Starting May 6, use discount code NRSWK2014 at checkout to receive 20% off any product.
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that flu activity is decreasing in many parts of the country, 47 states are still reporting widespread geographic influenza activity. The southern and southeastern parts of the country, along with New England and the Midwest, are seeing a decline in the number of flu cases, while populations in the Southwest and Northwest have seen an increase in activity. According to the CDC, more than 130 million doses of the flu vaccine have been distributed as of January 18, and state that there are sufficient vaccinations for those who have not yet received the flu shot.
Along with the flu, the debate rages on as to whether healthcare workers should be required to receive the vaccination. Last month, eight nurses at an Indiana hospital were fired for refusing the mandatory flu shots, causing both positive and negative reactions from the public and the healthcare community.
In a poll this month at StrategiesforNurseManagers.com, we asked readers whether or not nurses at their organizations are required to receive a flu shot. The results were almost evenly matched, with 58% saying flu shots are mandatory and 42% responding that the flu vaccination is optional.
How do you feel about mandatory flu shots? Do you agree with firing nurses who refuse, or do you feel that it is a right to refuse the vaccine? Weigh in on the issue in our comments section!
Editor’s note: This post originally appeared on the Patient Safety Monitor blog.
On January 15, the Joint Commission issued a proposed National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) on management of alarms. Alarms are intended to avert caregivers of potential patient problems, but if they are not properly managed, they can compromise patient safety, and there is a general agreement that this is an important safety issue, according to the release.
This proposed NPSG focuses on managing alarms that have the most direct relationship to patient safety. As alarm management solutions are identified, this proposed NPSG would be updated to reflect best practices. A survey in the release contains 15 questions and respondents will be able to offer their comments directly to the Joint Commission. The survey is open until February 26, 2013.
Care provided by nurse practitioners (NP) is comparable to care provided by physicians in terms of patient satisfaction, prescribing accuracy, preventative education, and time spent with patients, according to a literature review conducted by the National Governors Association. The group examined 22 articles and studies regarding scope-of-practice for NPs.
The review found that NPs could successfully manage chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, and rated favorably in gaining patients’ compliance with recommendations and reductions in blood pressure and blood sugar. The report notes that patients often stated a preference for a care from a physician when it came to medical aspects, but had no preference with regards to nonmedical aspects of care.
NPs are currently allowed to practice and prescribe independently in 16 states and the District of Columbia, while NPs in the remaining 34 states must have some level of physician involvement in order to practice. The authors of the report note that expanding scope-of-practice laws for NPs could help states meet the increasing demands for primary care services. The debate over whether or not NPs should be allowed to practice independently has been ongoing for several years, with many physicians groups opposing NP independence. However, those states and healthcare systems that have expanded the role of NPs have reported positive results, according to the report.
Editor’s note: This blog post originally appeared on the Patient Safety Monitor blog.
As of October 1, two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impact Medicare payments at hospitals across the country. The Act calls for a 1% cut of Medicare payments across all eligible hospitals. The $963 million expected to result from those cuts will be placed in a fund for redistribution among hospitals that scored well over the course of a performance period that ended last June. Hospitals’ scores are based on patient satisfaction surveys and adherence to 12 quality measures.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services predicts that approximately 40% of the hospitals will receive their 1% share of the pooled money, plus additional funding, while another 500 hospitals will received their 1% share back, without additional money. Approximately 1,377 lower performing hospitals will receive less than their 1% pool funds back.
As the payment adjustments begin to impact hospitals’ finances and the penalties increase in the coming years, it will be interesting to see how these organizations react to the incentives. The intended goal, of course, is to improve quality across the board, but how different hospitals will accomplish that goal remains to be seen.
The debate about who is qualified to provide primary care rages on this week, following the release of the report Primary Care for the 21st Century: Ensuring a Quality, Physician-led Team for Every Patient from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). In the document, the AAFP advocates for a team-based approach to primary care–in which a physician leads a groups of nurses, nurse practitioners (NP), physician assistants (PA), and other healthcare professionals to provide comprehensive and high quality care –while criticizing proposals to allow NPs to practice independently.
A national shortage of primary care physicians has led to efforts to substitute independently practicing NPs for physicians, but the AAFP points out that NPs “do not have the substance of doctor training or the length of clinical experience required to be doctors.” While it is an inarguable fact that physicians receive several years of training and clinical experience beyond that of NPs, the debate centers more around whether NPs and PAs can provide the necessary healthcare services that patients require while maintaining a high quality of care, without the direct supervision of or collaboration with a physician. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have already granted a greater degree of independence to advanced practice professionals.
While the AAFP’s argument for solving the primary care gap by instituting ideal ratios of NPs to physicians is compelling, and the model of physician-led healthcare teams does hold promise for improving the healthcare system, the report nonetheless seems to fan the flames when it comes to practitioner qualifications. NPs are referred to as “less-qualified health professionals” and “lesser-trained professionals” who are able to handle only patients with “basic,” “straightforward,” and
“uncomplicated” conditions. The language of the report does not seem to give NPs much credit when it comes to their training and education.
While the AAFP rules out the idea that two models of healthcare–physician-led teams and independently practicing NPs–could coexist harmoniously, one has to wonder whether ultimately the patient should be allowed to decide which model best meets his or her needs. Shouldn’t patients be trusted to make informed decisions about their healthcare? If a patient is aware of the amount of training an NP has received, is aware that it does not equal that of a primary care physician, and is comfortable with that concept, why shouldn’t a patient be able to seek those (potentially more convenient) services rather than hunt for a physician-led team model? The issue is complex, but a solution that allows all Americans to receive quality healthcare must be reached.
What are your thoughts on the AAFP report, and the debate about granting NPs autonomy? Share your comments with us!
Editor’s note: This blog post originally appeared on the Patient Safety Monitor blog.
A physician in Massachusetts gained attention last week when she announced that she would no longer accept patients who weight over 200 pounds. According to Helen Carter, MD, two of her staff members have sustained injuries from treating obese patients. One suffered a neck strain when attempting to pull out an examination table foot rest while the 284-pound patient was lying on the table, and the other staff member herniated two lumbar spine disks while performing a physical examination. According to Dr. Carter, her exam tables are ill-equipped for heavy patients, and she cannot afford the estimated $7,000 electric exam table.
In an interview for CommonHealth, Dr. Carter stated that she is not dismissing any of her current patients who are obese, but instead is encouraging them to lose weight. She compared her policy to turn away new patients who are overweight to turning away people seeking treatment for addiction, since she is not an addiction medicine specialist. She recommends that obese patients instead seek treatment at facilities with equipment designed to safely handle patients’ extra weight and specific programs to assist with weight loss.
Dr. Carter’s policy has been met by mixed reviews. Some of the sources interviewed for the articles mentioned above see the policy as discrimination against obese patients, while others agree with the policy and note that obesity is contributing to rising healthcare costs and safety issues.
It’s a difficult argument from either side, however. Dr. Carter can justify her decision under the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Medical Code of Ethics, which states that physicians may choose whom to serve, and her argument for the safety of her staff and the lack of proper equipment is compelling. However, by refusing to treat patients she is arguably putting them at risk, and possibly violating another of the AMA’s principles: providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
Is Dr. Carter within her rights to refuse treatment for obese patients, or does this move beyond a safety issue to one of prejudice? Share your thoughts in the comments section!