You are currently browsing the daily archive for January 30, 2011.
This cropped gray cardigan is probably one of my most worn items. I love the fit and color.
I was browsing sweater patterns on Ravelry when I came across a similar sweater by Kim Hargreaves.
I love the idea of replacing my store-bought item with a hand-knit version (as the pattern can easily by modified).
A work friend was commenting to another work friend about my liking foreign films.
“She even watches the ones in a different language!”
“Ummm….aren’t most foreign films in a different language?”
“There are some made in England.”
The Texas Nursing Voice quarterly has an article titled “10 Good Reasons To Hire/Retain TPAPN Nurses: A Commentary.” Written by the program’s director Mike Van Doren, it goes on to explain why employers shouldn’t shy away from a nurse participating in the Texas Peer Assistance Program for Nurses (TPAPN).
Doren describes TPAPN as “a voluntary, alternative program for RNs and LVNs of Texas whose psychiatric and substance use disorders have impaired their practice.” I didn’t realize psychiatric disorders fell under its umbrella as it has only ever been explained to me as a rehabilitative program for substance abusing nurses. The official website lists the following diagnoses: substance abuse, substance dependency, anxiety disorders, major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder.
I believe in second chances when someone has proven themselves. I have some problems with a few of the arguments Van Doren made favoring a TPAPN nurse over a nurse without a similar record.
“When employers retain or hire a TPAPN nurse, they have a nurse with an identified risk who is closely monitored, including frequent, random drug testing. The nurse applicant who is less known, i.e., not in TPAPN, may seem more desirable but may actually prove to have more liablities.”
I have more liabilities than the nurse with a history of stealing narcotics?
“Nurses participating in TPAPN are often very motivated to make the sacrifices necessary to improve their lifestyles through their recovery, thereby benefiting their patients and their employers as nurse managers as TPAPN nurses have attested to time and time again.”
This one hits a bit close to home because it seems to be a necessary qualification to be a nurse manager or a coordinator of anything at my department. This hospital passed up several well-qualified, long-term employees a few years ago for a nurse manager position in favor of a TPAPN nurse. This hospital seems to make up cushy positions to keep a TPAPN nurse while still claiming there is no money to increase staffing. It’s as if the next step in the professional ladder is to get caught, complete the program, and get position coveted by non-TPAPN nurses.
Van Doren uses a lot of “mays” in his arguments so that he can’t be accused of actually stating a TPAPN nurse is a better choice. However, I think this next argument is particularly worded poorly.
“If health care employers often, directly or indirectly, care for or help in the rehabilitation of patients who may have a substance abuse or psychiatiric disorder as well as other chronic diseases, why would they not allow similar care and re-entry to practice for their nurse employees, especially those who have demonstrated good practice and loyalty?”
Shouldn’t that read “for their nurse employees
especially those who have demostrated good practice?” (I don’t know where he was going with the loyalty part. Loyalty to the employer? To the profession? To the patient?) His argument as worded seems to indicate that every nurse with such a history should automatically be allowed re-entry just because we as nurses treat these types of patients- not just re-entry to those nurses who have fallen but proven to have picked themselves up and moved in a positive direction.
I agree that a history of TPAPN should not be a career-long burden for a nurse who has recovered and continued with good practice. I believe that a nurse who has successfully completed a program and maintained good nursing practice for a couple of years should have the opportunity for promotions and advancements in the profession.
I know that Mike Van Doren is advocating for the nurses participating in the program, however, that advocacy should not be at the expense of us nurses with “unknown” risks. The rehab program should not have any appearances of reward. It should simply assist the nurse in recovering his/her footing and continuing toward a successful career.