Oklahoma CRNA Program?

nilepoc · Jun 18, 2003

To everyone wishing to limit the number of programs, I say please consider your position on this issue carefully. If you look at the current number of CRNAs, and the retirement rate of the CRNAs practicing. You will see, as the AANA does that we will soon be in a deficite worse than the one we are currently in.

MDAs see this deficit and are trying to prevent it by increasisng the number of residencies, and backing legislation to increase the scope of practice, and the number of AAs.

There is a shortage right now, and there will continue to be one in the future. We as CRNAs, SRNAs and potential CRNAs, need to boost our numbers. This can only be done by increasing the education opportunities availible to us.

If we do not rise to the shortage, others will. Additionally, our numbers need to be strong, to maintain the ground we have, and prevent loosing any of our scope of practice.

I will also say, that the current goal of the AANA is to expand the number of programs, and additionally the quality. This is not my opinion, it is a remembered statement spoken by the president of the AANA at the mid year conference.

Craig

TexasCRNA · Jun 18, 2003

Granted, CAREFUL growth is needed to a degree but what do you define as growth? A few schools added on every couple of years or saturating the market as NP schools have done?

I still say a tight control is better, to allow for more quality vs the numbers.

I am by no means an expert on this topic and this just my opinion.

Lee

London88 · Jun 18, 2003

Let us suppose that the market for CRNAs does become saturated. Admittedly this would be bad for those who are trying to get a job. But politically it would not be bad for the profession owing to the reasons that nilepoc stated above. I think we need to try to look beyond what benefits us as an individual, and try to look at what would benefit the profession as a whole. If the ASA increases its membership owing to more physicians entering the specialty, and the AANA does not, then there will be a major shift in power that will be favorable to the ASA.

g8rlimey · Jun 18, 2003

I agree wholeheartedly with Marian.

Not to imply any of you are thinking this, but the thought may be out there...if we limit the number of schools, job security will be indefinite, salaries will continue to rise in order to attract experienced CRNA's, and fringe bennies will continue to get sweeter; however, as marian stated above, the need to look beyond individual benefits is paramount to the survival of our profession as the leading providers of anesthesia. Instead of limiting the number of schools, we need to push for the adherence to standards of education and promote the profession to those we meet in every facet of our lives. I am sure if there were such a thing as "certificate of need" for CRNA schools, the number of schools needed to account for the shortage now and in the future would be suprising. Promotion of this profession not only means CRNA but also nursing, because that is the place we come from. I will now step down from the box.

EricTAMUCC-BSN, BSN, RN · Jun 22, 2003

_____

smogmatt · Jun 24, 2003

I have called and shadowed Many CRNA's often When I ask what school they went to, some have said, "Well I went to (insert school name here) but it closed back in 19XX. Help me out, I am under the impression that many schools closed when the MS and other new requirements were required by the AANA (I understand the AANA has to keep their schools up to par w/MDA training)

So my question is how many schools have closed down within the last 20 yrs and why?

I agree w/ nilepoc, the shortage is getting worse not better, and this might be good on and an individual basis, ($$, Job security, etc) but as for the profession its bad, as for overstaturation like NP's I think we got a very very long way to go.

Matt

loisane · Jun 24, 2003

Matt,

I have heard this information at meetings, but I did not keep track of the specifics.

The number of programs did peak a few years ago, dropped steadily, and then leveled off to the current 85, which has been maintained for a few years now.

The profession is encouraging the development of new programs, so the prevailing opinion is that we have not reached the optimum number yet.

If you get a chance to go to any state or national association meetings, this is often discussed, along with the graphical display of the data on slides.

As to why this occured, I am sure your observation about the masters requirement is part of the story. Probably a multitude of factors involved in some cases. In terms of the development of new programs, the availability of clinical experiences is the limiting factor most often discussed.

loisane crna

aphippen · Jul 23, 2003

While there is not a nursing school in Oklahoma that has a CRNA program, TCU in Ft. Worth has signed a contract with St. Francis, Tulsa, OK, as a Clinical Site. TCU is also in the process of making Tulsa a distance option learning site. Meaning, you spend from Aug-Dec in Ft. Worth, and complete the other months in Tulsa finishing up. Both major hospitals in Tulsa are starting to recruit CRNAs, therefore, not being opposed to them. St. Francis has stepped up to the plate, and has taken on the Clinical aspect. It would be nice if an Oklahoma college would pick up the didactic part! :eek:

SCHMEGGA · Jul 24, 2003

Originally posted by MICU RN
While I can understand wanting new programs in states that don't have any. I have to agree with LEE that the last thing we need is to over saturate the field and start too many schools like the NP programs have done. The more we keep the standards up and control the supply the better off we will be as crna's.

Fantastic point MICU RN! I feel the same way. More people less money and harder to find the job you want, where you want.