| We support the Patient Safety Act.
Why? Because the legislation proposes collaborative, innovative solutions to the issues of the pressing nursing shortage and quality assurance within the Commonwealth’s hospitals — options that will prove more beneficial to state residents than the alternative — mandated nurse-staffing ratios.
Filed by state Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), the Patient Safety Act is supported by several health care organizations, including the American Nurses Association, Mass. Hospital Assoc., the Mass. Medical Society, and several others. The reason? It approaches the ongoing nurse shortage with sensible proposals designed to put more nurses in the pipeline, not a knee-jerk reaction that would ultimately cripple hospitals and other health care providers.
The act would require the state to review the efficacy of current workforce development programs and make recommendations for redesign, if necessary, in order to continue to strengthen the health care workforce. It would also create a repository for all necessary data to make such recommendations – the Mass. Center for Nursing Inc., which would be staffed by a unique group of nursing organizations working together toward a common goal.
Further, the bill proposes that all hospitals file and post a nurse-staffing plan specifically tailored to patient needs, by identifying the appropriate number and mix of nurses for each shift and unit.
In reading a summary of the legislation, the words collaboration and innovation appear frequently, and we believe the bill and its supporters have struck a high note in health care legislation, having addressed several issues with one bill, by focusing on existing strengths and the ways in which Massachusetts health care providers can become even stronger economic drivers, in part by honing in one very necessary component of health care delivery: nurses.
The Mass. Nurses Assoc., one of the primary nursing organizations in the Commonwealth, has filed separate legislation that proposes mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios, which could cost the state’s hospitals $450 million a year to implement.
Both of these bills are geared toward patient safety and quality health care, but after examination of both proposals, one is clearly a better, more sensible alternative for the Commonwealth.
The Patient Safety Act does take into account the importance of safe staffing ratios, but it does not impose minimums; any such across-the-board mandates are dangerous in their very definition, because once put into place, they are rigid and inflexible. If problems arise — and some are already emerging in California, the first state in the union to impose such ratios — it will be very difficult for hospitals to respond. Their hands will be tied in a very tight knot.
The Patient Safety Act, however, has more moving parts and therefore more fluidity. Instead of mandated 1:4 ratios, the bill proposes the public scrutiny of every hospital’s staffing plan, and leaves room in which to make changes, if necessary. And again, the wording is right there in the bill, which proposes that nurses are “part of the plan.”
What’s more, Massachusetts hospitals across the state are accepting this piece of the bill and pledging their support for increased accountability and transparency when it comes to their staffing plans.
That sentiment is seen best locally through the Western Mass. Hospitals Coalition – a partnership created solely to support the Patient Safety Act and oppose nurse-staffing ratios – which includes nearly every hospital in the region.
Never before has such a joint effort been set forth by our hospitals; essentially, the development is unheard of and indicative of the weight of the issue.
The Western Mass. Hospitals Coalition has made history just to support one piece of legislation, and we support its efforts, as well as the Patient Safety Act, which pledges to create change and increase stability within our nursing force, and ultimately our hospitals through collaboration and innovation. |
Comments are closed.