Med school for experienced CRNA?

Wow, I did not know that CRNA's were not always required to have a Master's or even a Bachelor's.. thats crazy and unbelievable.. In their line of work, CRNA's should definitely have at least a Master's. I am a first year RN student, and I'm interested in Nurse Anesthesia, and I don't think I would even feel comfortable working as a CRNA without years of experience and education. Even as an RN, I think you should have more than 2 years of education and clinical experience.. but thats just me.. thats what I would feel comfortable with.. I like to be well prepared.

Many years ago, CRNA and NP programs were certificate programs rather than graduate degree programs (they still provided roughly the same education -- you just ended up with a certificate instead of a degree). All advanced practice nursing programs have been MSN programs for a long time now, but the existing "certificate" clinicians were "grandfathered in" when the transition to MSN-level education was made (the same as existing MSN-prepared advanced practice nurses will be grandfathered in if the DNP becomes a requirement). So, there are still some CRNAs and NPs out there (not many, at this point) who have certificates rather than degrees. It doesn't mean they got an inadequate education, above and beyond their RN licensure -- they just got a different piece of paper at the end of it. Since the MSN became mandatory, all candidates have been required to complete an MSN (although I believe there are still a few certificate NP programs in CA -- but there are strict limitations on their practice; they can't get national certification, and they can't work anywhere but CA).

Yeah, and you can find references back to when anesthesia was nothing more than a 3wk course for doctors and nurses. Anesthesia has rapidly changed over the years. It isn't always about the amount of formal education someone has that makes them a good anesthetist/physician. For the CRNAs that may still only have their Bachelor's degree we are talking about someone with at least 12yrs experience minimum. My personal opinion is that I would pick the anesthetist with the most experience and a Bachelors/Certificate in anesthesia over most new grads with a Masters/Doctorate in anesthesia.

A CRNA with a one year certificate program and 2 years RN degree after high school cannot possibly have the "same equivalent training" as a 4 year BSN plus 24-33 month training program (whats with the huge variation in the masters degree requirements for CRNAs...ND vs Mayo?). What the public needs in order to avoid the disingenuous lumping of the inferiorly trained and superiorly trained CRNAs together in one category is a reflective differential designation.... Same as RNs did from LPNs years ago. Same as BSRNs did from 2 year RNs years ago. Same as AP nurses did from BSRNs years ago. What the public needs is a CRNA I, CRNA II, and CRNA III designation that give credit to the CRNAs for the work they have done to achieve the CRNA designation whether it be doctorate earned, masters degree earned, masters degree grandfathered, BS degree earned, or non-BS degree. How could one possibly argue that a doctorate CRNA is no different than a CRNA with 3 years training after high school? Don't CRNAs have any pride in their professional accomplishments or are they forever satisfied being lumped in with those with inferior training and capabilities?

It's not crazy if you understand the history of higher education. A certificate did not mean a lower level of education, just that it did not occur in a traditional college environment. I would argue that the 3 year diploma nurse of the past had as good, if not better, education as the Associate degree nurses of today. Educational standards have evolved in most professions. When I graduated from a MS program in 1991, most graduates were at the Master's level. Those at the bachelor's level were receiving their second bachelor's degree because all nurse anesthesia students were required to have a bachelor's degree prior to entering a program. I've worked with anesthesiologists who never had an anesthesia residency. It wasn't required when they started practice.

Just because things were done differently in the past doesn't mean that it isn't still UNBELIEVABLE.. our education system has definitely changed for the better.
I agree with one of the posts on here.. Someone with a two year RN degree and a 1 year certificate program can't possibly be compared to a BSN and on top of that MSN.. No way. Yes, things were done differently in the past, but that doesn't make it right.

When the certificate programs were in operation, there were no 2 year RNs, that's a modern invention. RNs were either 3 year dipoloma-36 months full time, or a BSN graduate. There were BSN programs long before Associate degree RN programs. So there are no CRNAs with a two year RN and a 1 year certificate program and there never were. By the time the ADN programs started awarding the RN, all nurse anesthesia programs were required by accreditation standards to only admit RNs with a bachelor's degree. In 1960 all anesthesia programs were required to be a minimum of 18 months in length by accreditation standards, many were 24 months. There are a few CRNAs with a 3 year diploma RN and an 18 month anesthesia certificate. The implication in the statement above that CRNAs without a Master's degree have a total of 3 years of education is absolutely false.

There are no CRNAs with 3 years of training post HS, none anywhere. It is absolutely impossible by accreditation standards.

As for CRNA I, II, etc you are confusing certification to practice with academic degrees, they are different. CRNAs with MS or PhD degrees are differentiated by their degree designation. Certification means you meet the minimum standards to practice, nothing more. Individual institutions may choose to credential me as a CRNA based on whatever criteria deemed relevant. If I have a certain degree, or experience, or whatever, they can base my credentials on that as they see fit. They can decide that I should be a CRNA I, and my collegue should be a CRNA II, and give that whatever significance appropriate. (You see that done with RNs-they aren't credentialed but hospitals will designate different levels based on academic degrees, personally I haven't seen it done with CRNAs)That's as it should be, it should be decided on a local level not by a national certifying body.

How about someone with a two year RN degree, a 1 year certificate program, and 20 or 30 years of successful clinical practice???? (And, of course, the older CRNAs were predominantly hospital diploma school graduates who were much better prepared as RNs than current ADN or BSN graduates are today to begin with, before they attended a specialty anesthesia program ...)

Nurses were adminstering anesthesia (safely and successfully) long before it became a medical specialty -- the earliest anesthesiologists trained by attending nurse anesthesia programs.

I would have to vehemently disagree that 20-30 years experience makes a CRNA with inferior training equal to or better than todays BSN or MS or DNP trained nurses. If that were the case, why not just go back to the archaic way of doing things all by guilds of nursing. No, I am afraid after having 25 years of observing nurses having come from different backgrounds the following is true:
1. 2 year or diploma nurses tend to be more adept at clinical skills immediately after graduation since they frequently were effectively working as apprentices in the same hospital or system where they would be eventually employed, however within a few years their deficiencies in fundamental knowledge of pharmacology, anatomy, physiology became apparent. Advances in technology were not embraced by these nurses that preferred instead wrote nursing of repetition....doing it the way they were trained to do. The same has been true in my observations of CRNAS: those with inferior training were the last to let go of gallamine or dTC since that was what seemed to work for them in spite of the advances in neuromuscular blockade advancements. The inferiorly trained CRNAs really didn't have a working knowledge of cardiac physiology even when they were doing cardiac cases....it was routine induction/intubation/gas/wake em up mentality. They were technicians, far inferior to the currently trained nurses with BSN or earned (not grandfathered) MSNs.
2. 30 years experience frequently means blindly doing the same thing over and over again for 30 years, or until changes in technology or practice forces them to change. How many nurses with 30 years experience are frequently conducting studies to advance the field? Or going to TEE courses to enhance their knowledge about TEE even if they may not use it? Where is the thirst for knowledge when the mundane becomes an accepted way of life? Current BSN and MSN nurses (and especially doctoral nurses) will do far more for the field of nurse anesthesia than the technicians role that has been adopted by so many CRNAs, especially those with 20-30 years of experience. The AANA journal needs drastic improvement in content and original research. With over 30,000 CRNAs, why are there so few quality evidence based nursing journal article publications? Is it just not important to the older CRNAs?

I challenge the CRNAs of America to rise to the level of currently trained CRNAs and to do your duty to the profession by DOING RESEARCH and not simply resting on the laurels of the "good old days" when nurses didn't need no college learnin' and are smarter than these young upstarts.