Not in nursing school but starting my pre-requisites for it this fall. Very interesting topic on many levels!
If it was mentioned within the context of triage and entry questions, etc. Could it be just something to look out for? For instance they show up with an issue, you learn they vape, a light goes off in your brain to make sure their symptoms are not from a ruptured, exploded or malfunctioning battery?
I presume the effects would be different than a battery issue on a cellphone as when vaping, we're inhaling deeply and intently.
Wouldn't any fumes resulting from a ruptured or malfunctioning battery reach different parts of the anatomy under these circumstances than using a cellphone?
Who wrote the handbook the instructor is teaching from? Would she let you look at it? Any footnotes? Editor's name?
Hi BillyRayBob,
Congratulations on entering the nursing field
This isn't a nursing class, in the strict sense, such as the case with nursing school curriculum. I've been a nurse for 13 years. These 'classes' are considered "Ongoing Education." Depending on the clinical setting you choose to enter; hospital, office, rehabilitation, you might have similar classes. The aim is to inform the staff of anything from administrative policy changes to nursing procedures - and then some.
Depending on the topic(s) of these meetings, the presenter could be someone assigned to my particular hospital. Or, more often than not, they're assigned to the network (the network of hospitals, example TriStar, HCA, etc). In short, they often are not someone I see on a regular basis or who teach from a manual. Rather, from memos issued by Administration. We are given summaries of the material discussed, because we have to sign off on them. But the summary sheets rarely contain the data to substantiate *why* we're being told, what we're being told. For example, if we're informed that pediatric patients presenting without an adult are to see certain personnel (social worker, etc), we're not told why Admin made that decision - we just follow the directive.
To your question about Triage, yes. It was put in the context of: If the patient is a previous smoker, inquire if they use(d) any cessation methodologies: nicotine gum, nicotine patches - and now, we are to inquire if they use ecigarettes. If so, we are to note that for the attending physician.
Thus far, we are not to engage with them on any "dangers." However, we're left with the impression that the Attending, will - which is why I'm a little bent out of shape.
However, I aim to find out exactly what their basing the information on. I'm going to track it down.
Obviously, in the grander scheme of things, for me to worry about carcinogens involved in vaping would be really dumb considering how much worse carbon monoxide cigarettes are! On the other hand, if it turns out there is any truth to what the instrucutor and oncologist said, it might be best not to discount it to quickly for the sake of vapers who have never smoked. I would really very much like to give them accurate information, even if it doesn't make vaping look like the most wonderful thing in the world.
I agree. I'm sitting here vaping at the moment and feel perfectly safe in doing so, especially considering the alternative. At the same time, I'm not going to completely dismiss what they're saying. If I dismissed what my superiors told me, I'd be out of a job, real quick, right? :/
But, I want to absolutely qualify what they're saying. I want to see which end of the spectrum their information lands. Dangerous, negligible, or without basis.
Right now, I'm leaning toward "negligible," based on what people are telling me here. However, I know my hospital isn't pulling the information 'out of a hat', because that's too litigious.
I just think they're blowing "something" out of proportion, and I'm going to find out what that something is.
