|
04.15.2004
Survey Shows That Part-Time RNs Already
in Massachusetts Hospitals
Would Be Able to Fill Safe Staffing Needs
Hospitals Have Claimed Nurses Can’t
Be Found.
Time Has Come for Safe Staffing, Advocates
Say, Will Introduce Budget Amendment.
[Executive
Summary (Word Doc)]
[Statistical
Details (Excel Chart)]
[Powerpoint Presentation]
[Graphic detailing
the impact of the study]
BOSTON—A new survey of acute
care Registered Nurses working part-time shows that more than a
third would work additional hours if the Safe Staffing Bill (H.
1282) became law. By the most conservative estimates, this would
translate into at least 1,824 full-time RN positions, more than
enough to meet the bill’s staffing requirements without new
hires.
The Safe Staffing Bill, which was approved by the
Legislature’s Health Care Committee and is now before the
Ways and Means Committee, sets flexible minimum RN-to-patient ratios
in Massachusetts hospitals. The measure will dramatically improve
the quality and safety of patient care in Massachusetts hospitals,
where current staffing levels have resulted in a 76 percent increase
in the rate of injuries, medication errors, and complaints by patients
in the last seven years, according to the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health (DPH).
The statewide survey of part-time hospital RNs conducted
in March by the respected Cambridge-based polling firm, Opinion
Dynamics Corp. (ODC), found that 33 percent of all RNs working part-time
in acute-care settings (hospitals) would consider working more hours
if the Safe Staffing Law is passed. Among those who would consider
taking more hours, 47 percent would consider an additional 8 hours
a week, 23 percent would consider 9 to 24 additional hours a week,
11 percent would consider an additional 24 hours a week, while 17
percent would consider an additional 7 or fewer hours a week.
“The results of this survey completely and
convincingly dismantle one of the key arguments of the hospital
industry in opposing this bill, which is, ‘we can’t
find the nurses to provide this level of care.’ We have long
known that Massachusetts has the highest per capita population of
nurses in the nation – there has never been a nursing shortage
here. Now we know that the nurses we need are already working in
our hospitals and are more than willing to increase their hours,
provided they have a guarantee of a safe work environment and the
ability to provide proper care for their patients,” said Karen
Higgins, president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA).
MNA is a leader of the Coalition to Protect Massachusetts Patients,
an alliance of 65 health care and consumer groups working for enactment
of H. 1282.
According to Julie Pinkham, RN, executive director
of MNA, the survey results mean that patients would benefit from
receiving care by experienced nurses who already are familiar with
procedures at the hospital. “It is clear that the immediate
solution to the hospital staffing crisis is to focus on retaining
existing personnel. Every survey of nurses nationally and here in
Massachusetts shows that the current staffing crisis is being caused
by poor staffing conditions that are driving experienced nurses
away from the hospital bedside. It’s not an issue of recruiting
new nurses, it’s an issue of keeping the nurses we have.”
Pinkham said the recruitment-focused legislation
backed by the Massachusetts Hospital Association and sponsored by
Sen. Richard T. Moore (D-Uxbridge) “simply won’t work.
Without fixing the staffing conditions, we’ll end up spending
the taxpayers’ dollars to recruit nurses into hospitals who
will just turn around and walk out a year later.”
She noted that a new study published last month
in the scholarly journal, Health Care Management Review on the high
cost of RN turnover found the cost for advertising, training and
loss in productivity associated with recruiting new nurses to a
facility is $37,000 per nurse at minimum and can add as much as
5 percent to a hospital’s annual budget. The study concludes
that improving working/staffing conditions is a primary strategy
for hospitals that can generate significant cost savings. “Not
only is the Safe Staffing Bill more effective than the Moore proposal,”
she said, “it is more fiscally responsible.”
Saying that “the time has come to protect
Massachusetts patients from avoidable hospital errors caused by
inadequate staffing,” Rep. Jennifer Callahan, RN (D-Sutton)
said she would introduce an amendment to the Fiscal 2005 Budget
implementing the provisions of H. 1282. “The Commonwealth’s
hospitals have had a decade to come up with their own solution and
all that has happened is that understaffing and the danger to hospital
patients has gotten dramatically worse,” Rep. Callahan added.
Judith Sacks of Lynnfield, a nurse at Faulkner Hospital,
is one of the nurses who is willing to increase her hours if safe
staffing legislation becomes law.
“I am now working part time in a GI (gastrointestinal)
unit, leaving a job I loved working nights in the Intensive Care
Unit (ICU). I just couldn’t take the conditions and was tired
of feeling like I couldn’t take proper care of my patients.
But if this bill passes, I would definitely go back to the ICU because
that’s the type of nursing I love best. I just need to know
I can do it safely.”
Beth Hulett of Lowell, who works nights on a busy
medical surgical floor at St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center,
is another nurse who is waiting in the wings. “I have been
struggling for years to provide good care to patients, with staffing
ratios that are too often unacceptable. Working part-time is the
only way I can deal with these conditions. With a guarantee of a
safe ratio, I would definitely increase my hours.” (To speak
with a nurse in your coverage area, contact the David Schildmeier
at 781.249.0430)
These additional work hours (see attached document
for details) would result in adding the equivalent of 1,824 full-time
RN positions. The numbers used are conservative figures based on
independent sources. When MNA did a spot check of actual payroll
records at 19 Massachusetts hospitals, the percentage of part-timers—and
the potential pool of those willing to work additional shifts—was
substantially higher, exceeding 60 percent at several facilities.
Based on projections from the actual experience
in California, where a similar law went into effect this year, H.
1282 would require a maximum of 1,800 additional full-time positions.
Moreover, another ODC poll of RNs in June 2003 found that 42 percent
of RNs who have left bedside nursing said that if the law passes,
they will be "much more likely” to return to hospital
work if the Safe Staffing Bill is enacted—a pool of 22,433
potential additional hospital nurses.
The 2003 survey found that burnout due to understaffing
was driving RNs from bedside nursing and fixing the problem would
bring them back.
In addition to this pool of nurses, the Board of
Registration in Nursing reports an increase in enrollment to Massachusetts
nursing schools and projects a graduating class of nearly 2,000
students this year. Nearly all schools are currently full with long
waiting lists of candidates waiting to get into the profession.
Survey Represents All Nurses
MNA commissioned the ODC poll. Survey respondents
were randomly selected from the complete file of the nurses registered
with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing. Fully 52
percent of the respondents are not MNA members. According to the
research firm, the survey results can be assumed to be representative
of the registered nurses to within a + 7 percent at a 95 percent
confidence interval.
Bill Draws Significant Support
The safe staffing legislation has won broad public
support and the endorsement of 65 of the state’s most influential
health care and consumer advocacy groups, including the American
Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association,
Health Care for All, League of Women Voters, Massachusetts Senior
Action Council, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association.
The bill, H.1282 An Act Ensuring Quality Patient
Care and Safe RN Staffing, would protect Massachusetts patients
by ensuring that they receive nursing care appropriate to the severity
of their medical conditions. To ensure maximum flexibility, the
bill also requires that the Department of Public Health develop
an objective system for monitoring patient medical conditions so
that staffing levels can be adjusted and improved to meet patient
needs. The bill would set minimum staffing standards specific to
every unit and department in a hospital to ensure that major disparities
in care levels do not exist in the commonwealth’s hospitals,
and specifically provides that nothing in the bill “shall
be deemed to preclude any facility from increasing the number of
direct-care registered nurses.”
Currently there are no standards in existence for
nurse staffing in Massachusetts hospitals, and no requirements for
hospitals to provide an adequate level of nursing care. RN-to-patient
ratios, which have been linked to a variety of patient complications
and mortality in hospitals, can vary widely from facility to facility.
It is not uncommon for nurses in Massachusetts to have seven, eight
or even 10 patients at a time, when a safe ratio would be no more
than four patients for a nurse on a typical hospital floor.
Last November the Joint Committee on Health Care
gave the bill a favorable report and it is now in the Ways and Means
Committee. More than 102 legislators have signed on as sponsors
to the bill, and nurses and advocates are pushing to have the bill
released from the House Ways and Means Committee by Nurses Week,
May 6 – 12.
These studies followed earlier reports in some of
the nation’s most prestigious medical and nursing journals,
including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the
American Medical Association, the Joint Commission on Accreditation
of Health care Organizations, and other prestigious researcher journals
revealing that the more patients a registered nurse cares for, the
higher the risk of injury, illness and mortality to those patients.
“The scientific evidence is clear and overwhelming:
when nurses have too many patients, patients’ lives are in
jeopardy. The evidence also makes clear that poor staffing conditions
in Massachusetts hospitals have caused and continue to exacerbate
a growing shortage of nurses who are willing to work in hospitals,”
said Higgins. “Passage of this legislation is the key to improving
care to our patients and to creating conditions that will retain
and recruit the nurses we need to provide safe patient care.”
##
Massachusetts Hospital Nursing
By the Numbers
Number of licensed Registered Nurses
in Massachusetts
(Board of Registration in Nursing, minus advanced practice nurses) |
100,775 |
| |
|
Percentage of RNs who work in acute
care
(Opinion Dynamics Corp. RN Survey, June 2003) |
47% |
| |
= 47,364 |
| |
|
RNs working in acute care part-time
(US Department of Health and Human Services, Massachusetts) |
42% |
| |
= 19,893 |
| |
|
Percentage in survey or part-timers
who will consider working more hours if required to take care of fewer patients at a time
(Opinion Dynamics Corp. Survey March 2004) |
34% |
| |
= 6,7649 |
| |
|
Additional hours part-timers said they
would work
(Opinion Dynamics Corp. Survey March 2004) |
= 72,979 hours |
| |
|
| Divided by a 40-hour/week shift |
= 1,824 full-time RN Positions |
[Executive
Summary (Word Doc)]
[Statistical
Details (Excel Chart)]
[Powerpoint Presentation]
[Graphic detailing
the impact of the study]
|