ShareThis Page

Are nurses too busy to check on patients?

Luis Fábregas
| Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012

During a recent visit to a hospital to see one of my relatives, it struck me as odd that I sat there for nearly an hour and never saw a nurse come into the room.

I peeked out the door a few times and saw several nurses at the nurses station. They were clearly busy: talking to doctors and charting on computer terminals. But were they too busy to check on the patients they were caring for?

There's no denying that today's nurses are busier than ever. In Western Pennsylvania, we have a large and growing elderly population. Many come to the hospital with chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure. They sometimes arrive so sick, they require a lot of resources -- and precious time from busy nurses.

That means you're highly unlikely to see a nurse spending too much time in one patient's room, helping them eat or -- gasp -- holding their hand the way nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale did back in the 1800s. They come in, do what they're supposed to do, and go to the next patient.

Like most states, Pennsylvania has no mandates for nursing staffing levels. In fact, the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania opposes any law dictating how many patients a hospital should assign to one nurse.

"There are too many variables involved with determining staffing levels, and any one-size-fits-all policy/ratio ignores those variables," said Roger Baumgarten, the association's spokesman. The variables include the number of patients, how sick they are and the space and technology in a particular unit.

Jackie Dunbar-Jacob, dean of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Nursing, said nurses are trained to assess and prioritize patients so the very sick get more attention.

I can understand that, to a certain degree. But just because you're not in cardiac arrest and are able to carry on a conversation doesn't mean you shouldn't be continuously monitored. You're in the hospital because you need skilled medical care. And you shouldn't have to hire a private nurse.

A longtime nurse I know who has worked in both UPMC and West Penn Allegheny hospitals told me she supports nurse-to-patient ratios because they ultimately would give her more time with patients.

"Most good nurses want to spend time with their patients," she said. "But if you have a very sick patient, you have no choice but to spread yourself thin."

Pennsylvania should consider taking a cue from California, which became the first state in the nation to mandate minimum staffing levels. The 2004 law requires one nurse for every two patients in intensive care and one nurse for every five patients in medical surgical units.

A study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Arizona State University showed California's law improved staffing levels and -- more importantly -- the quality of patient care. The study found California hospitals hired more skilled registered nurses, not lesser-skilled vocational nurses, as some feared.

If having the right number of nurses can prevent medical errors, improve patient satisfaction and cut medication mistakes, it makes sense for Pennsylvania's health care community to have a serious discussion about this issue.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.