A group of hard-working health-care professionals felt justifiably slighted by a May 5 special section on nursing.
The section was planned to coincide with Nursing Week and spotlighted a $100,000 multimedia campaign sponsored by two groups, the registered nurses and the registered practical nurses of Ontario, with money from the ministry of health and long-term care.
The comprehensive section covered everything from the nursing shortage to upgrades in nursing education and the role of highly trained nurse practitioners. However the registered practical nurses got nary a reference in the section, beyond a mention on the back page of their campaign sponsorship.
They were angered by a front-page cutline that mentioned only the registered nurses as sponsors of the Nursing Week campaign. To make matters worse, all of the 15 stories and profiles in the 12-page section referred to registered nurses only.
There are 33,071 registered practical nurses in Ontario and half work in acute-care medical settings. There are 106,305 registered nurses. Registered practical nurses study for three semesters in a certificate program and can carry out about 70 per cent of the functions of registered nurses. Registered nurses have, to date, needed lengthier diploma programs.
Both groups are facing upgrades to their training. As of Jan. 1, 2005, RNs will take a four-year degree program. Registered practical nurses will take a two-year diploma program instead of the three-semester certificate program they now require.
By omission, the section implied that all nurses would need the four-year degree program and it undervalued the work of practical nurses. Their anger caused some to question if the content in the section was somehow advertiser driven.
Nothing could be further from the truth said Dennis Morgan, assistant managing editor, special sections. Morgan was appointed in 1994 to make sure all of The Star’s special sections had the same editorial ethics, guidelines and independence as the rest of the paper.
About 80 special sections are put out each year and they are usually themed to a specific subject or industry. However, all must have compelling readership interest first, and none is created just as a vehicle for advertising, Morgan said. Morgan acknowledges the sections must be able to pay for themselves or make a profit but that doesn’t mean advertisers run the show.
Each October, Morgan meets with staff to come up with a list of possible sections. If enough ads can be sold to support the concept, the section will go ahead. However, advertisers have no input into the content, he said. In fact, Morgan cited one case in which he turned down $125,000 in ads because he could see no compelling readership reason to do a proposed section. The stories are selected and written by editorial and freelance staff. He said the sections do not shy away from controversial and important issues.
For example, the Nursing Week section examined the controversy over the shift to private, for-profit care in the home-care sector.
In fact, registered nurse Brenda Windrim, who works for a for-profit private care agency, felt that story was unfair to the private sector. For-profit nursing companies provide excellent nursing and personal care, she wrote.
Kim Lockhart, special sections editor, said with hindsight the practical nurses should have got more coverage. They were not left out intentionally and if a Nursing Week special section is done next year he said they won’t be left out again.
