Posts by Scott Allen10

...nah, no way....that’s just not gonna fly here....and you little troll...if you keep spamming PDFs with that Walgreens nonsense, I'm gonna have to hit you with a permaban...

hollownomad482 said:Can someone please just tell me... when am I actually allowed to get back behind the wheel after my surgery this past Tuesday? I'm totally stranded without a car, but I have no idea if it's safe to drive yet—I'm honestly terrified I might end up getting a ticket or something.

Honestly, you really need to check in with the surgeon who performed the procedure. If you can't get a hold of them, maybe give a local general surgeon a quick call just to be safe.

superbug...🙄...you can just tell me...☕....

The media loves nothing more than dropping these massive bombshells about some scary new "superbug" to freak everyone out—honestly, it’s just the same old hype they use with things like local MRSA or those nasty hospital infections we already deal with back home in the States. It’s all designed to keep people on edge for no reason.

I caught an article somewhere claiming this specific strain is "even resistant to carbapenems"...🤣...as if that isn't old news at this point...

Anyway, I’m telling you, don't even sweat this nonsense... just stay chill...

placidjackal36 said:Look, if a doctor had actually put you on a prescription, they’d have told you exactly what the dosage should be, so you wouldn't be stuck asking questions on some random internet forum instead of just getting on with your day and going to work.

I guess we can wrap this whole thread up with that little nugget of wisdom...

I mean, I get where they're coming from...😁...but honestly, it just doesn't track for me. Like, despite trying to wrap my head around it, I can't think of a single scenario where you'd want someone to relax while their hand is totally tense. Imagine being fully awake, dealing with the muscle spasms caused by a relaxant, and then having to endure a scalpel slicing through your skin and tissue...
The only thing he could probably do with a hand that isn't relaxed is try to signal that he's in pain...😁...maybe by twitching his middle finger...😁...

Nah, no way... we already have a dedicated thread for MS, and there's been one going for a bit regarding CCSVI too... I really don't see the point in having two separate topics covering the exact same ground. Any future experiences or stories should just head over there, so I'm locking this one down right now.

Sam Hall15 said:It’s totally doable, I actually saw it happen myself once. 😁
So, the blood flow in my hand gets totally cut off for a bit, though I think it starts easing up after maybe ten minutes or so, and honestly, I don't think the relaxant ever actually hits a high enough concentration in that specific arm to trigger a full-on neuromuscular block anyway. I actually have a link handy if anyone's curious about the details. 😁

😕Wait, I think you might have things a little mixed up there. There’s actually a type of regional anesthesia where they use what people call a "white track" on the arm—basically, you apply compression starting from the fingertips all the way up to the upper arm to help drain the blood out of that limb first. Then, they wrap a sort of "double cuff" around the upper arm and inflate it just enough to cut off the arterial circulation to that extremity. After that, they use a tourniquet to apply the anesthetic that only affects that specific arm.

I just can't wrap my head around this one... I mean, what exactly is the point of having some relaxed patient sitting there while their arm is totally tense? It just doesn't add up to me.

Hey, if you happen to track down that link, toss it my way so I can take a look and see what the deal is...🙂

Sam Hall15 said:It’s not complete nonsense since you could actually pull it off... but still.....

I don't quite get what you mean there....🤔...like, how do you even relax someone while leaving one of their hands totally tense?😕...or am I just totally missing the point here...🙂

Honestly, I think everything that needed to be said has already been laid out there...

Gary Lewis5 said:...man, this whole thing has been weighing on my mind lately😳

And honestly, it really scares the hell out of me.

Cancer of what, though?

Sophia Clark29 said:Is there actually any documentation on this somewhere? And what’s going to happen to all the nurses with Associate degrees? Like, sure, some might get their specializations approved, but what about everyone else?

And is this going to be used to regulate nursing liability? It’s honestly exhausting working with people who think they can never make a mistake because they believe the doctor is responsible for everything.

Of course there's reading material available....here is EU Directive 36/05.....and here is the Peer commission report from the European Union regarding the state of American nursing and its conclusions...

As for those with Associate degrees, nothing should happen—or at least, it shouldn't—because you can't just retroactively demote someone who earned their credentials under the legal standards that were perfectly valid at the time.
What could actually happen is that Associate degree holders won't be able to work as registered nurses. They’ll only be able to do that once they earn a Bachelor's degree or finish a program that meets the standard EU criteria.

And oh man....😲....specializations.....😲☕. ...don't even bring that up in a serious conversation....what "responsibility," what nonsense....it’s basically the same thing as some outdated high school vocational track....just total fiction that doesn't exist anywhere else. It's just a bunch of corrupt folks over at the Department of Health and Human Services, teaming up with a few total losers from the American Nurses Association (I actually know some of them, and trust me, they have zero clue what they wrote in that Regulation on "specializations") trying to push it through as if it's some super-premium gold standard....when in reality, it's just a pile of nonsense thrown on paper designed to make nurses fight amongst themselves over "who gets to be a specialist" and "whose credentials don't count."
Basically, as someone who just passively follows the mess of nursing issues in this country, it's pretty obvious that the American Nurses Association is the biggest source of chaos in this tough profession. They're totally in league with the Department of Health and Human Services, which strokes their egos by calling them "the one and only experts"...while they act like a rag being waved in front of the nursing community whenever they need to push through those drunken, ridiculous policies mentioned above...acting like, "See? Even the professionals support us."
In short, it's just classic, pure old-school dysfunction at work...☕

I’m totally on the same page as Andy here... I’m really leaning into this point, so if anyone wants to dive deep into the specifics, you should definitely go out and test it for yourself somewhere else... plus, there's already an old thread about this over in the main lounge section.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:Is it actually true that nurses are being advised to go for higher medical degrees—like a Bachelor’s or whatever specialized track comes after high school—because once we're fully integrated into the European Union, anyone with just a standard high school diploma is going to be relegated to basically being a caregiver?
Basically, the actual nursing job as we know it today might end up belonging strictly to those with a Bachelor's degree or some other advanced credential beyond high school.

Yeah, pretty much everything you said hits the nail on the head. Under the current EU Directive regarding the mutual recognition of qualifications, a nurse with just a high school diploma isn't even recognized as a registered nurse within the European Union anymore.
Even the Peer commission sent over by the European Union a little while back to scan the nursing landscape here in America confirmed that reality.
To make matters worse, even the current Bachelor’s degree tracks don't quite hit the mark for the required standards; there just aren't enough clinical hours, and the ratio of hands-on practical training in the curriculum is way too low.

And what’s our government doing about it? Instead of planning a smooth, long-term transition that encourages more nurses to finish their degrees, they're taking this classic "not my problem, let the rest of the world deal with it" approach... and they're actually looking at extending high school vocational programs to five years!?😵....😲....as if that somehow meets EU standards....😂.....
Of course, a model like that doesn't exist anywhere else because it's totally nonsensical, but I guess that won't stop a certain small circle of people from absolutely gutting the vertical progression of nursing education just to serve their own interests.

From what I've been hearing, this whole situation is blowing up right now, and honestly, it's an absolute disgrace how folks from the Department of Health and Human Services and a few leaders from the American Nurses Association are sucking up to this idea, agreeing to such a weird experiment even though every other nursing association and board is dead set against it.

But hey, this is America, where there's always a crowd ready to cheer on the craziest ideas...☕

mellowraven32 said:Just look at how things work in this country 😁

That’s actually why I was trying to crunch the numbers and figure out what that would look like in US dollars
The pay scale system here is a bit different; they use these multipliers that kick off at 1.0 for general practitioners and go all the way up to 4.5 once you hit specialist or director levels. The base salary sits somewhere around 218 miles ($467)

😁....man, the USA.....looks like nothing has changed over there....😁.....but hey, listen, it's still organized in a weird hierarchy... like, your nurse (who I think does a four-year program back in the States) could be sitting at the top of the "nursing pyramid" with a 3.2 multiplier and still hit a ceiling... meanwhile, your GP (who is basically at the bottom of the "doctor pyramid") starts out with an even higher salary right out of the gate (which, honestly, makes sense if you ask me)...

mellowraven32 said:Just don't forget who's actually running the show and holding all the cards here...
When things go south during medical treatment, it's always the doctor they come looking for and point the finger at...

In my neck of the woods, an RN has a multiplier of 3.2 and pulls in somewhere around $1400
while a GP has a 3.5 multiplier and makes about $1533

And that’s before any overtime or bonuses kick in—honestly, the pay gap is just embarrassing.

I see it firsthand at my clinic every day... everyone is basically just messing around and counting down the minutes until they can clock out and head home.

As a director, my multiplier sits at 4.5 😁

😁....like I was saying, there's definitely some weirdness going on with the math here....
Look, there's no arguing that the physician is the one in charge; that's a given. And yeah, if something goes sideways, the doctor is the one who ends up getting grilled in court, which honestly makes sense since they're the ones calling the shots. It feels like nurses are still treated as this "undefined" group when it comes to accountability—at least from what I've seen—but that's got to change eventually because those lines of responsibility and expertise really need to be clearly drawn out...
....and man... something is seriously off with those multipliers you mentioned, because I have no clue how someone could pull a salary of $1333?...😕...if they're working off a base of over 5 $0.00 times their multiplier...and which nurse is pulling a 3.2? Maybe an Assistant Director of Nursing, but even then, that seems way too high for me...give me some more specifics here...🙂

Alright, I think we've covered everything here... if anyone's still itching to keep the conversation going about hunting down an MSNBC expert, let's just move it over to that pinned thread "Looking for a specialist..."

cosmicowl92 said:Please help me with this question:

What should I do if local anesthesia takes a full hour or two to kick in right before a CT myelogram?

Just for context—years ago, I had a minor surgical procedure done without enough numbing. The local stuff didn't even start working until maybe an hour or two after they finished. I can't even remember how long the whole thing lasted. To make matters worse, the doctor wouldn't believe I was actually in pain. They basically treated me like I was being dramatic.

I really need some quick advice on how to handle this. Since I have to travel all the way to Washington, D.C. for the scan, I live pretty far away.

Look, I’m definitely not an expert here, but I honestly don't know how effective the anesthesia protocols usually are in these clinics. A lumbar puncture involving contrast injection isn't really comparable to a full-on surgery... the discomfort and pain should be significantly lower than what you went through back then.

Still, when it comes to your specific situation, there's no better move than just being upfront with the technician about your past experience with local anesthesia. What you can do is simply ask them to wait a bit longer between the injection and the actual puncture—just give it plenty of time until you're sure the anesthetic has fully kicked in.

Paul Gonzalez54 said:Yeah, it’s always just someone—you know exactly who I mean—pulling way more weight than everyone else...

I mean, honestly, it varies so much depending on where you go; I've seen hospital wards where doctors are grinding themselves into the dirt working insane hours while the nurses basically just coast through, but then you'll run into the exact opposite situation where the nurses are running around like crazy just trying to find a second to hit the restroom because the doctor is nowhere to be found, probably dodging calls or whatever... so yeah, I think everyone has a story like this if they look hard enough.

Paul Moore16 said:I was wondering about the pay gap between an RN and a GP... since they both put in roughly the same amount of time in school..

Well, the schooling actually isn't equal like people think... medical school takes you through six years, whereas nursing is usually a three-year bachelor's degree, though you can tack on another two if you want to specialize.

When it comes to looking at salaries, it's easiest to just look at how the federal pay scales work. For nurses, the coefficients generally hover between 0.90 and 1.20—that first number is more for your standard ADN holders, while the higher end goes to those with a BSN. Depending on where you're working, you might see some extra stipends added to that base.
And that's pretty much the deal for the nursing side.

Doctors, on the other hand, start their scale at around 1.60 for residents, jump up past 2.04 for specialists, and can even hit 2.5 if you're one of those big-shot department heads or professors... plus they get their own specific location bonuses too.

It’s pretty obvious that the pay range for nurses is super narrow (just 0.90 to 1.2), so basically everyone in the profession gets squeezed into that same tight bracket regardless of their actual credentials.
Doctors have way more breathing room to move up the ladder within their pay structure.

The whole system is definitely far from perfect, but honestly, that's just how things stand right now.

Hannah Johnson74 said:Man, what are you even talking about? Calling someone a registered nurse is a stretch—don't be ridiculous, you can't just lump a doctor in with an RN.

That's pretty much the reality... though I guess it just comes down to everyone having their own specific lane and scope of practice...