Connect with Healthcetera
Monday, April 29, 2024
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 134)

Since Tuesday, I’ve been attending the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) 36th annual conference on pediatric health. NAPNAP was the first professional society for nurse practitioners and is the professional home for more than 8,000 pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs). There are over 1500 PNPs attending this conference – including students eager to network with the most clinically advanced PNP leaders in their field.

There are acute care and primary care PNPs. I’ve sat in on conversations with PNPs who work in the most rural counties throughout America and heard what it’s like to be the sole provider of pediatric care to impoverished families living within a 300 mile radius. I met PNP hospitalists who work in neonatal intensive care units in major public hospitals in densely populated cities.

It can get lonely being a health care provider so this meeting not only provides them with access to clinical practice knowledge and updates on state-by-state Full Practice Authority legislation but connection to each other. They say it revitalizes them.

On today’s Healthstyles hear my interview with Mary Chesney, PhD, RN, CNP, FAAN, Clinical Associate Professor and Director of the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Program at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing. Dr. Chesney is the President of NAPNAP.  The discussion includes NAPNAP’s position and the status of Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reauthorization currently in discussion in Washington and her leadership in changing archaic laws by passing state legislation on Full Practice Authority for NPs.

You can listen to the interview with Dr. Chesney here:

 

Kristi Westphaln, PNP, MSN, is a pediatric nurse practitioner and expert in trauma with over 15 years experience in the emergency room. Westphaln is passionate and compelled to speak out on something too many people don’t want to hear – that many pediatric head injuries are preventable. Pediatric head injuries may result in long term disabilities or even death. She’s on a mission and you can hear it in her crystal clear no-nonsense approach when she tells us simple age-appropriate injury prevention strategies.

You can listen to her interview here

Healthstyles is produced by the Center for Health, Media and Policy at Hunter College and can be heard Thursdays at 1 PM on WBAI Pacifica Radio in NYC at 99.5 FM and streamed live at wbai.org

Since Tuesday, I've been attending the National

As I return to my analysis of New York Times nursing coverage after a semester break in Brazil, nursing’s recent front-page spread tempted me.  But to discuss Dionne Searcey, Eduardo Porter and Robert Gebeloff’s  article would only encourage you to read it.

 

Instead, I’ll push past, hoping that others see nursing as different from telephone repair, and that too many folks don’t start joining the profession just for a bigger paycheck. I want to highlight content that will further the profession and its voice in the media, not journalism that sells nursing as a solution for jumping classes.

 

Wednesday’s editorial, “Is That Really a Five-Star Nursing Home?”, provided a perfect replacement. In it, the Editorial Board told of Medicare’s new algorithm for telling the public which nursing homes are good or not. Go figure, the data on Nursing Homes Compare (a Medicare website similar to Hospital Compare), largely based on staffing and quality, was quite inflated; a third of the facilities lost their five-star rating after these new standards launched.

 

What excited me most wasn’t the promise of more accurate data, though. It was the info-heavy statement at the very end of the article:

 

“Perhaps the most important improvement is that by the end of 2016, the government will require all nursing homes to report staffing levels — an important determinant of quality — every quarter, using an electronic system that can be verified with payroll data.”

 

I’m a hospital nurse, not a nursing home nurse, and I’ve often wondered why my patients and their families lacked insight into the data behind how I do my job (how many hours I spend with each patient), or with what tools (how many patients I care for, and my level of education). While Hospital Compare provides data on quality measures, it doesn’t report or link these measures to staffing, as the Times just did in this editorial’s final statement.

 

In comparison, Nursing Home Compare lists staffing data for consumers to view and weigh. So, if I’m looking for a nursing home for my 97-year-old grandma, I can compare the ones in my neighborhood, and see how much time nurses spend with each resident. Even though these numbers are bloated (I mixed some basic math with some basic logic), they offer a baseline for consumers to judge from. I’d venture to guess that everyone in Big Mac America knows that more time with patients is better than less.

 

If I’m looking for a nursing home, this data is lovely. But my grandmother doesn’t need a nursing home. I’m shopping around for a quality hospital to care for my 57-year-old mom, who might need back surgery. Thanks to this Medicare data mismatch, I have no way of obtaining hospital staffing data. Sure, I can find info on back surgeons, but after the surgery is over, my mom will rely on nurses for her recovery. And if the Times editors just said what I think they just said – staffing should be transparent because it directly affects quality – this omission of information makes me a really unhappy consumer.

 

Since the government does not currently mandate reporting on hospital staffing, I, as a consumer, have no way of knowing anything about this, or where to find answers. I’m in the dark as to how each hospital staffs, which hospitals hire nurses with Bachelor’s degrees, or how one hospital compares to another in nursing care hours – all data-driven measures on the road to quality. Instead, I’m left guessing about an enormous determinant to quality for a life-altering, expensive transaction. Shocking, considering the level of analysis we demand when purchasing even simple electronic equipment.

 

In a world where health care bankruptcy reigns and technology creates consumer transparency for everything from cars to shaving cream, omitting information on hospital staffing is pretty senseless. And so, I’m a bit encouraged by what the Times did with this little editorial: By showing what’s becoming transparent, it highlighted what is still dangerously hidden.

 

This post is by Graduate Fellow, Amanda Anderson, RN. What Would #ThisNurse Say? is her media project that analyzes New York Times coverage of nursing. Amanda tweets as @12hourRN.

As I return to my analysis of

Want to live longer? There’s really no substitute for exercise. According to the latest research published in American Heart Association journal Circulation, it only takes a few times a week to make a difference.

 

In a study of 1.1 million healthy women in the United Kingdom, researchers found that middle-aged women who are physically active a few times per week have lower risks of heart disease, stroke and blood clots than inactive women. Surprisingly, more frequent physical activity didn’t result in further reductions in risk, researchers said.

 

Specifically, women who performed strenuous physical activity– enough to cause sweating or a faster heart beat — two to three times per week were about 20 percent less likely to develop heart disease, strokes or blood clots compared to participants who reported little or no activity. Among active women, there was little evidence of further risk reductions with more frequent activity.

 

The women reported their level of physical activity at the beginning of the study and three years later. Researchers then examined hospital admissions and deaths in relation to participants’ responses. Follow-up was, on average, nine years. Study participants had no history of cancer, heart disease, stroke, blood clots, or diabetes and were part of the Million Women study in 1996-2001. Their average age when they joined the study was 56.

 

There’s no need to become a marathon runner or triathlete, either. Physical activities associated with reduced risk included walking, gardening and cycling.

 

“Inactive middle-aged women should try to do some activity regularly,” said Miranda Armstrong, M.Phil., Ph.D, the study’s lead author and a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. “However, to prevent heart disease, stroke and blood clots, women don’t need to do very frequent activity as this seems to provide little additional benefit above that of moderately frequent activity.”

 

Despite numerous studies and data that point to the benefits of exercise, healthy diet, and managing cholesterol and blood pressure, many Americans — including nearly half of U.S. women, still seem to be in denial about their risks. So let’s review:

 

  • Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States; about 600,000 people die each year from the disease or related complications according to the CDC.
  • The American Heart Association estimates that heart disease accounts for roughly 17 percent of health care costs in the U.S. We spend nearly $109 billion every year just on coronary heart disease — including health services, medication, and lost productivity.
  • About half of all Americans (49 percent) have at least one key risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) — high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol or smoking.
  • Diabetes, being overweight or obese, physical inactivity, poor diet and excessive alcohol use also put people at higher risk of heart disease.
  • By 2030, at least 40 percent of Americans — that’s 2 in 5 —  will have  CVD; costs are projected to triple.

Women are particularly vulnerable. The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease estimates that 42 million U.S. women are currently living with heart disease. However, many women remain uninformed about the risks.

 

The CDC says only about half (54 percent) know it’s the number one killer of women as well as men. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of women who die suddenly of coronary heart disease have no prior symptoms. Signs of heart attacks in women can also be different than in men, and are sometimes ignored.

 

Women are also more susceptible than men to what the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute calls “broken heart syndrome,” or stress-induced cardiomyopathy. It frequently strikes previously healthy women — when extreme emotional stress results in severe (but often short-term) heart muscle failure. This is often misdiagnosed as a heart attack because symptoms are similar. However, there’s no evidence of blocked heart arteries in broken heart syndrome, and most people have a full and quick recovery.

 

You’ve heard it all before, but February is Heart Month, so it bears repeating: Watch your diet, manage your vital signs, quit smoking and do some type of regular physical activity. It’s easy to find excuses not to exercise. This latest study shows how little it takes to make a huge difference.

Want to live longer? There’s really no