We have talked about our dislike of the word mentee before, especially since we have a perfectly good alternative for it, protégé. However, what about the alternative for preceptor? Protégé doesn't work because a mentor/protégé relationship is more longterm than a preceptor/understudy (or whatever) relationship. I have to write a paper about preceptors and those they work with, and I don't want to use preceptee. Any suggestions?

What's wrong with student?

I thought a mentee was an aquatic critter in the everglades.

I agree. Student is perfectly good. In addition, why use preceptor? Whats wrong with teacher?

Because they're not always students; often they are new nurses. The preceptor isn't a teacher. He or she is an experienced practicing nurse who is assisting a new nurse to practice. There is a difference, I think.

quote:

I thought a mentee was an aquatic critter in the everglades.

I thought it was a brand of breath mint.

quote:

There is a difference, I think

I don't. I teach new entrants at work the basics of what we do on occasions. I'm not a qualified teacher, but I still teach them. I see no need for any artificial difference.

quote:

Because they're not always students; often they are new nurses.

That they're nurses doesn't mean they can't also be students. A student is a eprson who is studying. How and what they are studying shouldn't alter that fact.

When my wife was undergoing her nursing training she was known as a "student nurse", although I don't know whether the term is still used.

Many perfectly good words have fallen from use simply because people feel they are "old-fashioned" - which is why Brtish hospitals no longer have Matrons - a very bad decision to my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
… which is why Brtish hospitals no longer have Matrons - a very bad decision to my mind.

Wrong, Richard. They now have "Modern Matrons" who are supposed to be in charge of individual departments, e.g. "Orthopaedic Modern Matron". Unlike the old-fashioned Matron who actually supervised and enforced high standards by frequent visits to wards and other departments, the Modern Matron hangs about with a heavily laden clipboard, doing absolutely nothing of practical value; she/he is a genius at posting meaningless mission statements, which of course nobody reads. They also command substantial salaries, which Mr Blair advertises as part of his investment in the National Health Service.

quote:

Wrong, Richard. They now have "Modern Matrons"

So I'm actually right, then :-) And it was a bad decision.

Modern Matrons aren't matrons at all - just overpaid administrators. I can understand why Blair would like to pay them for their non-effectiveness since this is, surely, how most of his government ministers perform.

And incidentally, I have since found that we do still have student nurses in British hospitals.

Pearce, you've exactly described a scenario which, I think, supports my own belief that a national health system isn't something we should lobby for in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
I think, supports my own belief that a national health system isn't something we should lobby for in the US.

Throwing the baby away with the bathwater! A NHS, free at the point of consumption, open to everybody, free of party political interests is an ideal system. It worked extremely well from its inception in 1948 until about 1991, when an epidemic of intrusive, underqualified managers and administrators erupted. The mistakes are numerous. Prime errors are disregard for patients, concentration on paper-pushing, targets, and budgets, and disregard for common-sense good housekeeping.
If you can avoid these, and UK experience shows it was possible, then the USA will enormously benefit.

quote:

Pearce, you've exactly described a scenario which, I think, supports my own belief that a national health system isn't something we should lobby for in the US.

Just recently I have been to see my GP following a strange incident of palpitations.

I had a full consultation, an ECG, will tomorrow be having a blood test and later will have 24 hour heart monitoring.

What would that cost in the USA?

It cost me nothing under the NHS, and any further tests and/or treatment will cost me the same.

My mother has recently been in hospital for a hip operation and, because of complications, her stay has been prolonged and the operation has had to be repeated - around 7 weeks in hospital to date. The cost of the two operations, the hospital board and care, the drugs, the treatment - everything except my car parking charges when I visit - has been free - and will continue to be free.

What would that cost in the USA?

The problem isn't just with the NHS. For some time now, I've been convinced that the British Government's twin obsessions with targets and evidence are not just a nuisance but downright counterproductive. The NHS is one example. I watched an interview with a GP last week who was pointing out that if a patient comes to him with high blood pressure it isn't enough to diagnose it, it isn't even enough to cure it, in order to get the target driven portion of his practice's money he has to be able to prove that when the treatment was finished the reduction in blood pressure had met the Government target AND that he has reduced the blood pressure of at least the target number of patients. If the patients choose to ignore his advice then he would lose that money for those patients.

Now I can't speak for whether he was exagerating or not but I can speak for the analagous situation in Further Education. As an adult education course we get some LSC (Learning Skills Council) funding for each student. However it has strings attached.

Courses that fall below the Government target number of students have to close. If students leave before the end of the course, for whatever reason, some of the money for them has to be given back - even if they leave one week before the end to get a high paid job. Students who complete the course but fail the exam similarly are subject to this clawback.

The other problem for teachers is that everything must be evidenced on paper. Every lesson must have a written lesson plan filed, every course must have a detailed Scheme of Work, every student must have an Individual Learning Plan. Of all of them this last is the most nonsensical as to complete them to the required standard for a class of twenty would take every minute of every lesson with no time left for teaching. At least then I suppose I wouldn't have to spend double the amount of time on preparation and lesson evaluation that I actually spend on teaching.

This obsession with setting targets and providing evidence for everything intrudes in all sectors of public life. The police, the hospitals, the school, the ambulance service, the fire service, traffic wardens, councils: everyone has to reach set targets and prove that they have reached them.

I'm not saying that targets are always a bad idea but there are many situations where targets are inappropriate. Successive Governments over the years of every political stripe have failed to grasp this simple idea. For example if that poor GP has no patients with high blood pressure he can't possibly meet a target for reducing it.
It's nonsense.
If all my students were offered jobs by Alan Sugar (or Donald Trump if you get the US version of The Apprentice) and were suddenly earning a hundred thousand a year that would be a zero success rate for me as they'd all leave the course. I had exactly that situation last year when only a third of my starters finished but ALL of the others left because they found jobs.

Sorry for ranting but I am convinced that it's targets and evidence requriements that are taking us to hell not in a handbasket but in the drawer of a filing cabinet. I'm sure they have good intentions and we all know which road is paved with those.

Targets have a place ,but the trouble with targets that are set by politicians is that they know nothing about targets or the way in which they can be useful. After all, the only targets they are interested in is being re-elected.

If you set a target for fewer than, say, 5 incidents of car theft in a set period, what police force is going to arrest a suspect when they're on their 4th case?

A dose of self-employment would do most politians a deal of good as they would know all about customer satisfaction and targets then. If you don't meet your customers' needs you don't eat!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If you don't meet your customers' needs you don't eat!

That is exactly the point. When we have asked politicians, local and national to come to the workplace (hospital) to spend just 24 hours at the elbow of a physician or surgeon of their choice, to see what goes on, and what are the problems, they always find an excuse. They rely on paper data prepared by faceless bureaucrats who have no direct dealings with patients. Much of that data is inaccurate or frankly misleading.
Your favourable personal experiences are tokens of the dedication of doctors and nurses despite the almost insuperable conditions under which they labour.

To say (BobHale) that they have good intentions, is very generous. The evidence suggests they show a cynical and total disregard.

We don't have "matrons" in nursing in the U.S....thankfully! It doesn't sound professional to me. We have Chief Executive Officers, Vice Presidents, Chief Nurses, etc.

Richard, your palpitations incident would cost a lot here, I agree.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Get Dr. House on those cases!!! (He's British, you know!)

But note he works under the American system, Asa, not our NHS.

quote:

Your favourable personal experiences are tokens of the dedication of doctors and nurses despite the almost insuperable conditions under which they labour.

There's an old saying, "...There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers..." and I think the same principle could apply to workers and bosses.

Whereas it would be facile to suggest that all soldiers are wonderful and all officers rubbish, it would be equally wrong to suggest the converse.

But I believe that, in any hierarchical organisation, the fault lies at the top as often as it lies at the bottom. Few workers go to work thinking, "I'm really going to make a mess of thingsd today..." - but when things go wrong, it's easy to blame the workers and difficult to blame the bosses.

Just think of the obscene sums that are often paid to CEOs who, in some cases, have driven their companies into liquidation. And when they leave, with their massive golden handshakes, they walk straight into other plum jobs that they also procede to muck up!

That is the problem right now with too much of industry - and, as Europe's biggest employer, I would put the NHS into that category. The money that is going into the NHS is not going to the right people or the right levels - and until that's put right the system will never work as it's meant to work.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
But note he works under the American system, Asa, not our NHS.

So THAT'S why it takes him and his crew of four highly trained diagnostitians an hour to make diagnoses on each episode! Of course, it would be a bit faster if they didn't have to stop what they were doing every twelve minutes for four minute's worth of advertisements.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

There's an old saying, "...There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers..." and I think the same principle could apply to workers and bosses.

"I can use up 25,000 men a month."
Napoleon Bonaparte