Eusol - Tool of the Devil? I saw a nurse sacked about eight years ago for arguing with a surgeon about using Eusol. She knew it was 'bad' but had no idea what was bad about it. BS-ing a consultant who's used it for 20 years was a little unwise; especially in front of a patient.

I'm pretty sure the army still uses it, though my info may be 5 years out of date - but there's plenty of arguments in favour of using it in certain circumstances.

Never forget that Eusol *works* - and does not necessarily do any harm. It has largely diasappeared from hospital usage not because it is 'bad' - but because many other things are better.

There's a great article from Issue 1 of the Journal of Wound Care (1992) which has some 100 references; the most thorough review I've ever seen (I nearly got sacked for publishing it). There's been little research of note since.

"Rituals In Nursing" tritely exposed it's misuse, but history has simply repeated itself in reverse - now we 'don't use it' for no good reason, equally ritualistic, and devoid of rationale.

Those days, you could argue (and we did); you shouldn't use Eusol until you've read research that justifies the risk *in your circumstances*.

Today, you could argue just as powerfully, you shouldn't dismiss it, unless you've read the relevant reseach.

They dissed leeches; they dissed honey, they dissed maggots ... all vital parts of modern wound care, if you read the research.

They also started a NEW RITUAL, of cleaning wounds with saline alone, and people now do that, regardless of the type of wound, regardless of the local skin contaminants, regardless of MRSA "because research says so".

And you could bet £1000 they haven't read the research ... Because I happen to know that research *Does NOT* say so!! [Except for certain wound types in certain conditions]  ¶ 19:46 0 Comments

  Human Resources? Do they mean People? I've never quite understood the 'Human Resources' stuff - I remember when 'Personnel' wasn't a dirty word - in fact, I remember the day it became a dirty word.

Mary Gleason had just popped down to ask about maternity arrangements. She just heard that she was expecting, and was a little over anxious to get things right. "Please don't tell Sister just yet" she said, "I want to tell her myself when the doctor confirms my dates"

"No problem", said Avril in Personnel, "There's really no hurry for a good while yet". Mary returned to the ward. As she approached Sister's office to report back, Sister was just putting down the phone. "I hear congratulations are in order" She said. Mary never went to Personnel again.

Of course that kind of senseless stupidity is child's play compared to the games they play now.

The latest is this fear of being unfair to candidates. Now, I'm all for being fair to candidates, but there are limits. Thing is, they are so scared of tribunals, complaints and - whisper the word - lawyers, that they tend to appoint the person with the most threatening glare, rather than the one who's best for the job.

Of course I can understand that ward progress reports might be biased, and if, say, Sister didn't like men, then they could lose out.

Not to worry, there's always references; the referee is picked by the candidate, so they've been able to choose someone who will be fair, honest and constructive, and that's all we'll need. But no; it wouldn't do to let the interviewing panel read the references in advance; it might bias them one way or maybe another.

Fair enough, they can select at interview, read the references, and then make the appointment, can't they? Well, apparently not. Apparently it's unfair to ask referees for references for candidates who are not likely to be appointed, and potentially unfair on the candidates, if the reference fails to arrive in a timely manner.

So. Um. Well, best to appoint on the basis of interview, but not confirm until the selected person's reference has arrived. Er, no. That's unfair on the candidate too; all that awaitin' and a worryin' for the reference to arrive.

So you interview, select a candidate on the basis of interview, make the appointment, with the proviso that a negative reference may force a rethink.

And that never happens; no-one is going to risk the money - or the time - for a long boring court case.

So what happens is how it was put to me by a manager the other day "We appoint by interview - the best person on the day gets the job"

Think about that. All that leaning over backward to be fair to the candidate. But which candidate are they being fair to? And why aren't they being fair to the folk who get to work with the new member of staff - who may interview well, but be lazy, rude, smelly, incompetent and otherwise unpleasant?

And how fair is it to the patients that this schmuck will be responsible for?  ¶ 13:17 0 Comments