Truth in Reporting: Straight Talk for The Good Nurse

NB: The following resources are designed to accompany the open source editorial published here. Faculty, editors, and other interested colleagues are free to use these resources, with proper credit to Charles Graeber, author of The Good Nurse, Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, FAAN Co-Director, Center for Health, Media & Policy, Rudin Professor of Nursing, and INANE 2014.
~~
PART I: Editorial Notes Outline:

Takeaways:

  • In the book “The Good Nurse,” eight years of investigative journalism uncovers the shocking story of a serial killer nurse, and the hospital administrators who passed him on, hospital to hospital, for 16 years. It also highlights the attempts of several brave whistleblower “good nurses” to stop Cullen along the way.
  • Serial Killer Charles Cullen is in prison for what he did. Many of the administrators who passed him on got promoted.
  • New Health care employee reporting laws, designed to stop another serial killer like Charles Cullen, in fact treat truly “good nurses” like criminals.
  • Meanwhile it’s still business as usual for the health care executives.
  • We should know the truth and demand common sense laws that respect nurses, protect patients, and don’t force executives to choose between protecting their institution from lawsuits, and protecting patients from harm.

PART 2:

TALKING POINTS RE: LESSONS FROM THE GOOD NURSE

  • The book details how nurse Charles Cullen was able to selectively or randomly kill an admitted 40 patients, though expert estimates of the real number of Cullen’s victims to be closer to 400, making him the most prolific serial killer in United States history.
  • But as lurid as these details are, more troubling are the descriptions of how Cullen was able to go from hospital to hospital in Pennsylvania and New Jersey–often facilities with stellar reputations, including Magnet designation—without being reported to the police, the state boards of nursing, and state departments of health (until a coworker reported her suspicions to police, against the expressed wishes of her hospital’s administration and lawyers).
  • The book describes situations in which top executives and administrators stymied detectives’ investigations into the suspicious deaths, including misleading them about the medication system and record-keeping.
  • When Cullen’s actions (serious repeated nurse practice issues, delivery of non-proscribed meds, bizarre behavior, patient complaints) were uncovered by hospital authorities, he was either removed from the schedule, fired or allowed to resign. But never was he stopped.
  • Example: At one hospital, Cullen was the only suspect in a rash of insulin overdoses. He was removed from the schedule, and so applied for a job at another hospital, where he commenced overdosing patients. At another hospital, Cullen was caught red-handed by his fellow nurses, stashing empty vials of deadly paralytic drugs which he had used for murder during his shift. Outside council was brought in, and Cullen was allowed to resign, rather than be fired, so that he could receive a neutral recommendation.Cullen quickly found a new job, and began killing again.
  • Instead of opening themselves to outside scrutiny- at the risk of reputation, donor money and massive lawsuits- the hospitals, intentionally or otherwise, operated in a manner which protected the institution, but put their patients at risk.
  • When Cullen’s suspicious behavior was brought to the attention of the authorities by a whistle-blowing nurse, the hospital drove the nurse whistle-blower out of the state, and later, counter-sued families of patients who were suspected dying at Cullen’s hand, and have tried to intimidate the book’s author.
  • None of the hospital executives and administrators were held accountable for their actions or their failure to report Cullen in a timely fashion, if at all; several, including a risk management administrator who obstructed a police investigation, were promoted.
  • There has never been a criminal investigation into the actions of these administrators, but it’s not too late; nurse leaders and patient advocates can still demand the truth. (Somerset County NJ Police detectives also called for a Grand Jury).
  • New Jersey and Pennsylvania quickly passed broad laws (see below) in the wake of Cullen’s prosecution and life jail sentence, but there appears to be little enforcement of these laws requiring hospitals to report a dismissed employee.While ineffective at inspiring change at a corporate level, they appear to be overloading the nursing board review process, and can brand the career of an inexperienced nurse who makes a simple mistake.
  • Questions that this book raises include:
  1. How do we prevent another Cullen from going undiscovered in our midst?
  2. What policies and procedures are needed to ensure that health care organizations take the proper and ethical actions that are needed to prevent employees from continuing to do harm to patients?
  3. How do we tell nurses to blow the whistle on unsafe practices when their employers skirt doing so, even when required by law to report these?
  4. What are the local and national conversations that need to happen around institutional priorities (patient welfare versus financial health of the institution) accountability for patient safety in health care?
  5. What are the ethical dilemmas that nurse administrators face when becoming aware of potential criminal activity with their facilities, but are told by executive leadership that they must not investigate further, nor report it? How does this nurse weigh the legal requirement for reporting unsafe practitioners versus the institution’s interest in maintaining its fiscal health by preventing the information from becoming public?
  6. Exercise> CASE STUDIES: Students form groups to report and present case studies related to the practice and ethical issues raised.

PART 3:

A Closer Look: Systemic Issues Uncovered in The Good Nurse: The Enabling Patterns of Dysfunction

The investigation revealed several factors which contributed to perpetuating Cullen’s nursing/murder career for 16 years and 9 different health care facilities.

  • Hospitals were slow to react, understandably fearful of lawsuits, and repeatedly chose laborious and ineffective internal investigations, rather than outside attention from regulatory agencies and detectives. During these investigations, Cullen continued working, and killing patients.
  • Cullen exploited the space between the business of health care and the care itself.  In moving Cullen out of their employ and back into the job pool, many of the hospital administrators who dealt with the “Cullen problem” did their job as business people, but not their duty as patient advocates.
  • The trend toward outsourcing and use of staffing agencies increasingly allowed hospitals to treat nurses as disposable employees, and discouraged recognition or ownership of the Cullen problem.
  • Nurses who voiced concerns with Cullen’s behavior were marginalized, ignored or dismissed. Those who spoke up said they did so at the risk of their jobs. The whistle blowers identified in the book not only left the hospitals at which they had worked, and also the state.
  • Information flow was guarded, making problem solving slow, if impossible.
  • Outside investigators, who usually lacked familiarity with the healthcare setting and terms of art, were not given full information and didn’t even know what to ask for.
  • Family members of Cullen’s victims were sometimes not told of overdose levels of drugs found in their loved one’s bodies, and thus did not request autopsy.
  • Outside agencies, in the rare instances they were contacted regarding Cullen-related incidents, did not communicate with each other, or across state lines.
  • Penalties for non-reportage of sentinel events were rare and minimal, especially compared to  the perception that potential lawsuits would result from admitting to the problem.

The Good Nurse” is available in hardbook, paperback, and e-book versions, anywhere that fine books are sold.

“Cullen Laws” and Their Impact on Nursing Practice: Time for a Change?

NB: The following editorial was written by Charles Graeber, author of The Good Nurse, with Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, FAAN Co-Director, Center for Health, Media & Policy, Rudin Professor of Nursing, to share with the participants of INANE 2014. It is designed as an Open Source Editorial and may be used, in part or in whole, by nursing editors for their respective journals, with credit given to Graeber, Mason, and INANE 2014. This editorial grew out of the presentation by Charles and Diana at the INANE 2014 conference and serves as a response to some of the questions raised by members of the audience.

~~ 

Good NurseThe Health Care Worker Reporting laws that now impact the lives of millions of American nurses  got their start on a cloudy December day in 2003, when two homicide detectives arrested a veteran RN named Charles Cullen as he left a suburban New Jersey restaurant.

Cullen was charged with the murder of one of his patients and the attempted murder of another. Over the next two days, Cullen added dozens more. Investigators now believe that Charles Cullen may be responsible for the murder of as many as 400 patients at nine different New Jersey and Pennsylvania medical facilities that employed Cullen during his 16 year career.

The press dubbed Cullen an “Angel of Death,” but these were not mercy killings. Many of Cullen’s victims were, in fact, targeted at random.

But perhaps as shocking are the actions of Cullen’s employers, who repeatedly sent the troubled young nurse back into the job pool—with neutral or positive references—where he would kill again.

The question about Charles Cullen isn’t why he wasn’t caught sooner. Cullen himself said that he was caught inappropriately medicating patients at many of the hospitals at which he worked. His career, as detailed in the book “The Good Nurse,” contains several instances in which his employers seemed to suspect, or should have known, that Charles Cullen posed a danger to patients. Repeatedly, he was fired or allowed to resign in the wake of such incidents. But why was he never stopped?

One reason was the hospitals’ failure to admit their problem. Intentionally or otherwise, hospital administrators treated Cullen as a liability best moved quickly and quietly out the back door, even though that door led toward another hospital. We may never know their motives, but we are all too aware of the consequences of their actions, which protected institutions at the expense of patient safety.

The New Jersey’s Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act, enacted in the wake of Cullen’s arrest, was supposed to change that, by mandating the reporting of troubled health care employees. The intention of this and other so-called “Cullen Laws”—signed in NJ in May of 2005 and now adopted by some 35 states—is good.

But critics say these laws—drawn up by politicians rather than health care specialists—hurt more than they help, and have done nothing but punish innocent nurses, create a poisonous and paranoid “informer” atmosphere among colleagues, and clog the State Review Boards with more noise than information. Amazingly, inexperienced nurses making rookie mistakes, or nurses who are overworked due to administrative staffing choices may be tarred with the same brush as a drug-addicted nurse stealing meds, incompetent or impaired workers, or even a serial killer. Fighting even anonymously-reported claims costs time and money, and many nurse attorneys say that the law treats nurses who are reported to state boards as guilty until proven innocent. Nurses who have been unfairly and anonymously accused in a bullying work environment cannot leave their jobs, as an accused nurse who quits mid-process essentially concedes his or her case. The result is an effective blackballing from nursing. It remains on a nurse’s record for seven years, and in many cases, effectively terminates a career.

The problem, as Nurse Attorney Edie Brous (RN, Esq.) puts it, is that laws focused upon healthcare providers but ignoring healthcare administrators, “have the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLLAble.” “It is not the nurses in the Cullen case who allowed him to move from facility to facility, yet they are the ones punished by this legislation,” Brous says. “It was the hospital authorities who were grossly negligent and, in fact, complicit in the crimes. But these laws do not address those actors.”

Brous explains that while the unintended consequences of such laws are that individual nurses risk the damage or destruction of their careers, those actually responsible for the harm are still not held accountable.  Instead, administrators face a different standard, with very different consequences. Self-reporting a “Cullen Problem” could cost a hospital many millions of dollars in lawsuits and loss of reputation. Meanwhile, the penalties for failure to self-report a possible “Cullen Problem” are laughably small- if such a failure is caught, or can even be proven. Should administrators and risk managers be faced with another Cullen, they’ll still be asked to self-report a problem that could bring financial ruin to their employer. But under the current laws, a failure to report is potentially less risky, financially and criminally. Without proper laws, administrators are effectively forced to choose between the wellbeing of their business and the wellbeing of their patients. That’s not fair to anyone.

Is it too much to ask for smarter “Cullen Laws”? We hope not. Here’s what they might look like:

A smarter policy wouldn’t treat nurses like criminals. Nurses who forget to put siderails back up or make medication errors should not be treated like serial killers. Lumping good nurses who make inevitable human mistakes together with a rogue nurse who committed homicide does not serve any purpose. A smarter policy would distinguish between purposeful misconduct and unintentional human error.

It would also offer meaningful and enforceable financial and criminal penalties for hospital administrators who pass on a “Charles Cullen” employee without notifying the proper investigative authorities. If we realistically expect the executives tasked with maintaining the fiscal viability of our health care institutions to willingly expose those institutions to potentially devastating lawsuits and loss of reputation, we should also demand a law which makes the consequences of failing to do so just as dire to the bottom line. A proper “Cullen Law” wouldn’t force a false choice between making “good business decisions,” and truly doing good.

And one more characteristic of a smarter healthcare protection policy: it would also be enforceable in retrospect. In fact, the police detectives who finally put Cullen in prison asked for a grand jury, to look into whether health care administrators obstructed or delayed police investigations at their hospitals. Incredibly, their request was ignored,  but there is no statute of limitation for such crimes. Readers of “The Good Nurse” are now able to ask important questions about what hospital administrators did, and demand answers.

The point of the “Cullen Laws” is transparency in health care, for better patient outcomes. Good Nurses everywhere expect nothing less. Let’s ask the same of the administrators who passed Cullen on.

Applications for the Mentoring Editors Awards are Now Being Accepted!

Hello Everyone!

Applications for the Suzanne Smith Mentoring Editors Awards for INANE 2015 are now being accepted. Click here to be taken to the application page.

SS_photoThis Awards program was inaugurated for INANE 2014. Named in honor of long-time INANE colleague and friend to many, Suzanne Smith, the awards recognize her passion for mentoring and supporting others. The awards provide complimentary registration for four aspiring or novice editors to attend INANE 2015. In addition, each awardee is paired with a mentor who provides guidance and networking opportunities before, during, and after the conference.

Last year’s Mentoring Editors Awards program was extremely successful. You can read about the award winners here. In an informal evaluation, the awardees had high praise for their experience at the conference as well as the guidance of their mentors. A few of their comments include:

Attending INANE 2014 was very valuable for my insight about what it takes and what it means to be an editor. It provided an overview of the role and challenges in the editorial world.

I met the other candidates who received the awards and I think, based on my modest experience as a researcher and future editor, that the awards were well-deserved.

The conference was very helpful. I adore my mentor–she has been extraordinary.

The Mentoring Editors Awards are supported by INANE members and others who have generously contributed to the Suzanne Smith Development Fund. While we have enough money to support this program for the immediate future, donations are always gratefully accepted. Click here to donate to the fund for 2014-2015 and be listed on the honor roll of donors!

If you are interested in applying for one of the Mentoring Editors Awards, here are a few important details:

  • Applications are open now and will be accepted until February 1, 2015. Winners will be announced on March 1, 2015.
  • Award winners will receive a complimentary registration to INANE 2015 (value $495) and are expected to attend the conference. Additional expenses, including travel, hotel, meals, and incidentals are the responsibility of the award winner.
  • The award is not transferable.
  • The program is designed for new or aspiring editors, authors, peer reviewers, and others who have an interest in dissemination of nursing knowledge through the published literature. Seasoned or experienced editors are not eligible. Note: if you are seasoned editor who would like to serve as a mentor, contact Leslie to express your interest!
  • Winners will be asked to provide a photograph and brief bio to be posted on the INANE 2015 website.

If you need more information, please contact me using the Contact Form or by email: Leslie@medesk.com

Thank you! We look forward to reading the applications in the coming months!

On behalf of the Mentoring Editors Awards Committee for INANE 2015,

Leslie Nicoll, Chair
Lucy Bradley-Springer
Susan Carroll
Jan Fulton

Nurse Author & Editor: September Issue Published!

smaller bannerI am happy to announce that the September 2014 issue of Nurse Author & Editor has been published and is available online. If you are not already a subscriber, you can register at the website–the newsletter is available at no charge. I encourage all INANE members and friends to subscribe.

This is an exciting issue for me, in several ways. First, it is my first issue as the Editor, taking over the role from Dr. Marilyn Oermann. Second, I am very pleased with the line-up in the issue, with excellent articles written by Cynthia Saver, Thomas Long, Jacqueline Owens, and Thomas Long.

ShowImage

Dr. Sally Thorne

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the lead article is Predatory Publishing: What Editors Need to Know written by the INANE Predatory  Publishing Practices Collaborative. This article is a direct outcome from our discussion at the INANE meeting in August around issues related to open access, predatory publishers, and traps for unwary authors. It is exciting that our group has gone from discussion to publication in less than seven weeks. I am proud to share this article with INANE and the larger writing and publishing community of nurses. I offer my thanks to the members of the Collaborative for providing content and thoughtful comments and special thanks to Sally Thorne, Editor of Nursing Inquiry for her leadership in pulling this together so quickly and professionally.

As we discussed at the INANE meeting, editors are free to use this document to craft editorials for their respective journals. Similar to the Future of Nursing initiative a few years ago, the goal is to have these editorials reach beyond our members and inform nurses in a broader way about the issues that must be carefully considered around open access and predatory publishers.

If you are an editor and want to use some (or all) of this article in an editorial for your journal, you have permission to do so. There are just three requests that go with use:

  • Please reference the article as follows:
    • INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative. (2014). Predatory Publishing: What Editors Need to Know, Nurse Author & Editor24(3), 1.
  • Please include a link to the original article:
  • Please send a citation and copy of the editorial to me when it is published. I will keep track and have a report at the INANE 2015 meeting of how widely this content was distributed.

As I say in my Editorial for the issue, I have a goal to strengthen the relationship between INANE and Nurse Author & Editor and I believe publishing this article is a big step in that direction. I look forward to hearing from my INANE colleagues about their editorials and overall thoughts on this initiative.

Leslie

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN
Editor, Nurse Author & Editor
Editor-in-Chief, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing

Report from INANE 2014 in the COPE Digest

INANE member and elected member of the COPE Council, Charon Pierson, had a nice write up about INANE 2014 in the most recent issue of the COPE Digest. I have copied it here but you should go to the original site to see the pictures that were included–and read the rest of this month’s digest. Interesting news about retractions plus a report about the North American COPE Seminar that was held in Philadelphia, written by Geri Pearson. –LHN

INANE 2014: Nurse Editors Rate COPE Forum

Report from COPE Council member Charon Pierson

The first live COPE Forum was held at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Academy of Nurse Editors (INANE) in Portland, Maine, on August 5, 2014. Myself and COPE Council member Geri Pearson, both of us long-time INANE members and elected COPE Council members, hosted the afternoon session. Geri and I presented a brief overview of COPE to about 40 attendees, including a session on how COPE can help nurse editors. We have found that some editors who are members of COPE do not know they are members, nor do they know about all the useful resources membership provides. We also provided some individual consultations to those with particular questions and issues.

After the presentation, we asked for those editors who had submitted cases prior to the meeting to present their cases and updates. All of the editors attending and presenting cases were members of COPE. The cases included how to deal with an editor who was not responding to emails about a manuscript in the publication queue; how to deal with repeated submissions from students at one university where there was a lack of faculty supervision and consistently poor quality of manuscripts (including plagiarism); a case of duplicate submission without any verbatim plagiarism (same data prepared for a different audience); and how to deal with a publisher’s refusal to honor the STM Permissions Agreement. The cases will be added to the COPE case database in the near future.

The feedback from the attendees was very positive and we learned that many nurse editors are consistently using and relying on the COPE flowcharts. There was, however, not as much awareness of some of the other resources COPE provides.

A few other highlights of the INANE conference included the opening presentation by museum director and chief curator Jessica Nicoll on Maine Through Artists’ Eyes; this follows the INANE tradition of exploring art, culture and history in the host city. A plenary session by Jeffrey Beall and Carolyn Yucha described some of more egregious predatory publishing and conference events in the nursing world. In addition to all the breakout sessions on nuts and bolts topics related to publishing, we also heard from true crime writer Charles Graeber who documented the life of a serial killer nurse in the book The Good Nurse, and we closed with poetry from Maine poet Richard Blanco, who wrote the 2013 inaugural poem ‘One Today‘ for the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. And it wouldn’t be New England without a bay cruise and lobster bake!

2013-14 Annual Report

The Annual Web Resources report is now ready! You can download the  2013-14 Web annual-report-300report here!  As you will see from the report, the main accomplishment over the past year was the move of this web site to WordPress, where we are able to bring our blog and our web site together!

One of the big benefits of this shift is that the web site is now accessible for broad participation of all INANE members. Everyone can subscribe to this blog, and anyone can comment at any time,  And to be part of the team that updates our pages and contributes to content on the blog and on the web pages, you only need a bit of orientation to WordPress  - which Leslie Nicoll and I are eager to provide!  Here are the specific “jobs” we hope you will consider!

  • Web site management – we would welcome one to two people to participate with us! The tasks involved include:
    • Periodic review of our home page and “about INANE” content for currency and accuracy
    • Management of “networking” forms and the content generated when these forms are completed
    • Ongoing development of the “resources” section
  • Facebook content/photograph management – at least one person can take on this very fun task! Facebook provides a nice way to organize photos into albums. A number of pictures were uploaded during the website transition. We’d like to recruit a photo archivist to upload pictures, maintain the albums, and identify/label the people in the photos.
  • Bloggers – it would be ideal to have one to three people to form a blogging schedule so that our blog has regular posts on a variety of topics.

If you are willing to be involved with any of these activities for the coming year, please let us know by completing our contact form.  We would be delighted to hear for m you now, and to announce your joining our team at the annual meeting!

 

It’s Never to Early to Start Planning: INANE 2015

Carolyn Yucha will be hosting INANE 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. She has finalized the date and location so mark your calendars now!

INANE 2015 – August 3 to 5, 2015

Tropicana Las Vegas, A Doubletree by Hilton Resort

  • Monday Aug 3 – Reception and Opening Session 5-8 pm
  • Tuesday, Aug 4- 7am – 5 pm, includes continental breakfast and lunch
  • Wed, Aug 5 – 7am – 2 pm, includes continental breakfast and lunch

More details will be posted as the conference is planned!

Prepare to be surprised!

Prepare to be surprised–it’s the Tropicana Las Vegas!

Does a project need to be complete to submit an abstract to INANE 2014?

This past week I was at the 7th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Research. It was an intense meeting with dozens of research presentations on all aspects of peer review, ethical issues, and dilemmas confronting editors and publishers. More than once I found myself thinking–and commenting to INANE colleagues who were also at the meeting–”This would be interesting to replicate with nursing journals.”

As that thought occurred to me, I realized that many of us might be undertaking research to present at INANE 2014 next summer. That brought up the question: does a project need to be completed to submit an abstract to INANE 2014? Or, is it okay to submit an abstract for a work in progress (or planned) that will be completed by the time of the meeting next summer?

The short answer: yes, it is okay.

I realize that we are quite far ahead in our planning and call for abstracts. People may very well have ideas for projects that are ongoing or even in an early planning stage. If you anticipate that it will be complete by July 2014, please go ahead and submit your abstract now (remember, the closing date for the call is December 31, 2013). It can be written to reflect anticipated outcomes and then updated closer to the time of the conference with the actual information.

I have had many people contact me about the call, asking about topics and potential presentations. My answer is always the same: the INANE planning committee welcomes presentations and posters on just about anything, as long as it relates to dissemination of nursing knowledge through the published literature. Let your imagination be your guide–our goal is for diversity and variety in all presentations and posters.

If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. The Feedback Form at the INANE website is a quick and easy way to get in touch.

Leslie Nicoll, Chair

INANE 2014 Planning Committee: Peggy Chinn, Margaret Freda, Shawn Kennedy, Lisa Marshall, Jean Proehl, Suzanne Smith

Call for Abstracts for INANE 2014 Now Open!

The Call for Abstracts for INANE 2014 is now open! Please take advantage of this opportunity to share your editing innovations with your colleagues.

INANE 2014 will be held in Portland, Maine from August 4 to 6, 2014. Responding to comments from previous conferences, we have added nine breakout sessions (50 minutes each) plus two sessions (50 minutes) to view posters.

The poster sessions, which were inaugurated in San Francisco in 2011, have been very popular. Unfortunately, due to space limitations, posters were not on the agenda at the recent conference in Cork. We are happy to re-establish this session for INANE 2014 and are looking forward to reviewing abstracts that are submitted. Note that the posters will be table top displays (not bulletin boards); each presenter has full license to utilize their table however they wish to display their materials.

Another frequent comment is a wish for more variety and interaction. We hope that the breakout sessions address this request. Nine sessions are scheduled and we are hoping to receive abstracts that cover topics of interest to editors that we, as a planning committee, haven’t even thought of! We are asking that presenters include interactive activities in their sessions, also as a direct response to past evaluation comments.

The Call for Abstracts is open now and will continue through December 31, 2013. Details on submission requirements, plus the online submission form can be found at the INANE 2014 website. If you have any questions or need more information, please send them directly to the planning committee via the Feedback Form at the INANE 2014 website.

Interesting Podcast with Jeffrey Beall

Thanks to Tom Long, who brought this podcast to my attention via the INANE listserv. Stewart Wills of the Scholarly Kitchen interviews Jeffrey Beall, librarian the the University of Colorado, Denver who maintains the blog, Scholarly Open Access. Jeffrey is also going to be speaking at INANE 2014 in Portland, ME next summer.  From the website:

In this episode, we talk with librarian Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado, Denver — who maintains a celebrated scholarly publishing “hall of shame,” the list of predatory open access publishers and journals and blogs regularly at scholarlyoa.com — about the inherent vulnerability of gold open access to scams and fraud, the potential pitfalls of article-level metrics, and where his research on the scholarly publishing environment is headed.

Note that near the end of the podcast, Jeffrey mentions doing research on predatory journals in nursing–that is specifically for INANE. He is going to be on sabbatical at the beginning of 2014, doing research on predatory publishers and journals. He will be presenting his findings (among other things) at the conference.