I am a CNA and work with some residents who have MRSA and C Diff. I clean them on a regular basis. There are a couple of nurses who refuse to go in their room. They will say "I'll tell the nurse on the next shift to do that". Are they allowed to refuse to work with certain residents? I am just curious. I work with everyone, take precautions, even though I have an infant at home and worry about her health. Also, I am wondering just how contagious that MRSA is. Do healthcare workers ever become infected with it?
Hi,
MRSA is a potent bug. It's usually the facilitys policy to use universal precautions. And of course, wash your hands. Hard to believe that nurses just refuse to care for these patients. Sure wouldn't want anyone I love staying there. As far as C Diff. it's the same U. P. People with compromised immune systems are more susceptible as in all illnesses with these people. MRSA is gaining strength in recent years though. Only a few years ago you only heard of it being in hospitals and nursing homes, now people in the community get it due to the germ becoming stronger or more virulent. I'd cover up any opening to the skin you may have as well.
sunnie
MRSA is a tuough bug as is C. Diff but once a nurse has accepted an assignment they must care for that patient. When I was in nursing school and pregnant I had a patient that had MRSA. I "wondered" to the infection control nurse if my baby/pregnacy would be a risk from working with this patient. I was told if I felt uncomfortable I coould get a different assignment.
The fact of the matter is that the CDC estimates that MRSA is now a community based infection and is everywhere. IF 100 people were taken randomly off the street and cultured 15 of them would most likely be positive for MRSA. So as I see it - working in a hospital with patients who you know have it as opposed to coming in contact with it in the community where people don't take precautions to protect themselves and others is less dangerous.
Just my humble opinion.
Hppy
hppygr8ful wrote:MRSA is a tuough bug as is C. Diff but once a nurse has accepted an assignment they must care for that patient. When I was in nursing school and pregnant I had a patient that had MRSA. I "wondered" to the infection control nurse if my baby/pregnacy would be a risk from working with this patient. I was told if I felt uncomfortable I coould get a different assignment.
The fact of the matter is that the CDC estimates that MRSA is now a community based infection and is everywhere. IF 100 people were taken randomly off the street and cultured 15 of them would most likely be positive for MRSA. So as I see it - working in a hospital with patients who you know have it as opposed to coming in contact with it in the community where people don't take precautions to protect themselves and others is less dangerous.
Just my humble opinion.
Hppy
I can speak from personal experience on ORSA/MRSA. I am a nursing student, 3rd year and during clinical a few months ago, I contracted MRSA from a patient onto my scalp and got a golf ball sized abscess that eventually ended up with me in the ER on powerful antibiotics and medications. I also was on antibiotics for about a month, because I continued to get soft tissue infections in my ear. Now I have some anxiety about working with MRSA/ORSA patients, but I just wash my hands all the time, and am very conscious of what I am touching.
Although, I am sure there are some hospital policies where for employee safety, nurses with low immunity are allowed some exceptions, at least I should hope so.
Another hazard of our profession, just like rocket-mortars. Use universal/standard precautions I provide nursing/healthcare to ALL, period.
The over-use of ABT has led us to this sorry state. Right now, my hands are a complete mess, and if I were to use alcohol based gel, you'd hear me clear the heck in 'The Sand Box'.
What about those with weakened immune systems? Any feedback re: other facilities' policies?
That is just an excuse to get out of doing patient care and have you do it all. They make the money and get better benefits than you. In all reality the cna should not be the one allowed in their. It should be restricted to the nurses. They are licensed.
LOL, who is making the excuse now, CNA?
Healthcare is a team effort... get in that room and take care of your patient, ALL staff.
Frankly, it's everyone's job. No matter who the patient is, or what their DX is, they deserve good care. I know I was a crank when I was stuck in the hospital for 2 days. I apologized! :notworthy:
cougarnurse wrote:The over-use of ABT has led us to this sorry state. Right now, my hands are a complete mess, and if I were to use alcohol based gel, you'd hear me clear the heck in 'The Sand Box'.
What about those with weakened immune systems? Any feedback re: other facilities' policies?
For a number of years I was unable to use the waterless hand cleaner (WHC)- due to the high probably of it causing a positive drug test. I gradually went back to plain old soap and water and good standard practice of universal precautions.
Recently I was at a field trip with my son - they had been petting dolphins and touching all sorts of strange animals - When it was time to eat everybody broke out the WHC, but I was the only one who took my child to the bathroom for a good wash. I personally think WHC and ABT lull people into a false since of security and encourage laziness when it comes to good hand washing.
PS - I have never turned down an assignmentr due to a patient being contagious - and a number of the people I care for now are Hep - B carriers and I have never contracted anything.
Peace
Hppygr8ful
"...waterless hand cleaner (WHC)- due to the high probably of it causing a positive drug test."
Seriously?
SoldierNurse wrote:"...waterless hand cleaner (WHC)- due to the high probably of it causing a positive drug test."
Seriously?
There was a clinical study done where a group of nurses who claimed to be sober were tested under closed clinical conditions.
These nurses claimed they were sober but were testing positive. Under this test one group Non-alcoholic was used as a control. The othergroup were hospitalized to prevent used of alcohol but used WHC ten times a day. They tested positive ofr ETg a metablolite of alcohol produced by the liver.
There are a huge number of false positive for Etg when nurses use WHC.so much so that nurses in monitoring programs are told to avaid WHC by their monitoring boards.
There are clinical studies to show this.
Have a happy Easter
Hppy
Can you imagine, police officer standing outside your car and says... have you been using WHC while driviing?
Sorry but this sounds more like a late April Fool's joke.
Yes, I know how meds can be absorbed into the skin, such as nitropaste but c'mon WHC has such a small amount of alcohol regards to causing ETOH. Is this while drinking herbal tea, by chance?
LOL!!!
SoldierNurse wrote:Yes, I know how meds can be absorbed into the skin, such as nitropaste but c'mon WHC has such a small amount of alcohol regards to causing ETOH. Is this while drinking herbal tea, by chance?
LOL!!!
I know it sounds silly but you don't get drunk off it - It's just that your liver produces the ETg metabolite when it is used, and the Etg metabiolite is what they test for. Originally it was thought the alcohol use could be detected up to five days after drinking with this test as opposed to the one to two hour window with a regular pee test. This is one of the reasons nurses in diversion who are doing everything right are so paranoid.
Have a happy Easter - Just checking in as I am cooking a few dishes for my sister's party this afternoon!
Peace and Namaste
Hppygr8ful
hppygr8ful wrote:I know it sounds silly but you don't get drunk off it - It's just that your liver produces the ETg metabolite when it is used, and the Etg metabiolite is what they test for. Originally it was thought the alcohol use could be detected up to five days after drinking with this test as opposed to the one to two hour window with a regular pee test. This is one of the reasons nurses in diversion who are doing everything right are so paranoid.
Have a happy Easter - Just checking in as I am cooking a few dishes for my sister's party this afternoon!
Peace and Namaste
Hppygr8ful
I take a bit of offense at the lol as I tested positive 3 times in 5 years when I was completely 100% sober. One time they ruled as the WHC, another time was ruled an unknown exposure and the thrid time was due to Pam cooking spray which is 98% grain alcohol used as both a propellant and clarifier.
Peace and Namaste
Hppygr8ful
Pam spray sets things off? Who'd have thought?! Wonder if the Dollar General stuff would be just as bad. It's 'food for thought'.
cougarnurse wrote:Pam spray sets things off? Who'd have thought?! Wonder if the Dollar General stuff would be just as bad. It's 'food for thought'.
The generic cooking sprays are ok as far as I know - and a lot cheeper.
The Wolfgang Puck Cooking spray is 94% alcohol
Hppygr8ful
:offtopic: With WP, ain't you also paying for the name? Just a thought.
cougarnurse wrote::offtopic: With WP, ain't you also paying for the name? Just a thought.
Ok Ok - jumping back on topic - Bottom line all patients need to be cared for and common sense hygiene and universal procautions works most of the time.
Hppy
