[neurogeek]

[quote=one_crna;2694557]I am a CRNA so I feel very qualified to comment on this. I've made a number of good points on this thread that haven't been responded to with anything of substance. How can someone defend starting anesthesia school (or even interviewing for school) without enough hours to sit for CCRN? How can someone who has less than one year of independent decision making taking care of critically-ill patients be so sure they've learned it all? The lack of self-awareness from many of the "nurses" posting on this thread is really shocking. By saying that you learned everything you need to know about ICU in <1 year, you show both a lack of respect for the enormity of that role and just plain ignorance. This forum is a joke because a bunch of people who have no clue are uninterested in hearing the truth from anyone who knows what they are talking about. Just keep patting each other on the back . Sorry but you won't have virtual hugs or high-fives in the OR - only your skills and experience to get the job done.[/quote
"You don't know what you don't know." Thanks for the post. This reminds me of the person who posted that the only thing they didn't know about ICU after a year was how to make a bed.

[jjjoy]

I sometimes think schools are willing to accept those with less proven experience in order to boost the overall acceptance GPA. Those who come straight from a bachelor's program with a good GPA are tempting to accept. If the schools don't accept them right away, they risk losing those students because those potential students might decide to so something else meanwhile instead of working as an RN for a few years. Since it's still competitive to get into anesthesia programs, I don't see the argument of lowering acceptance criteria for monetary reasons because they're going to fill their seats no matter what.

I don't know what the drop-out rate is for anesthesia school, but for NP programs, there's another advantage to allowing direct-entry. Many NPs graduate and end up going back to floor nursing because the pay is better and/or they can choose their hours better (not having to be on-call or the like). If you have NPs who don't have the option of "going back to" floor nursing, then they're more likely to stay in an NP job even if the pay isn't as high as they'd expected.

With the greater use of CRNAs, maybe some are hoping CRNA's won't demand as much in pay if they have no alternative to being a CRNA. That is, facilities won't have to offer CRNA salaries that compete with the pay that experienced ICU nurses can command. Are these thoughts too cynical of me?

[jjjoy]

Oops! double post!

[NurseCutie]

So are you trying to say the Nurses with little ICU experience will command less CRNA pay when they graduate? I don't think thats right. A new CRNA is a new CRNA. No body has had CRNA experience when they graduate. As an experienced ICU nurse I know what kind of pay to expect from my potential employers, but as a CRNA I believe everybody is the same across the board.

[manavi]

I think jjjoy's point is that CRNA's with less ICU experience will be less marketable and will have fewer viable employment alternatives to being a CRNA. Although, I haven't heard of any CRNA that actually went back to working as a floor nurse.

Still some interesting insight.

If you really wanted to be cynical you might suggest schools are accepting less experienced ICU nurses with the hope of having some of them fail the program and have to be readmitted for additional tuition and fees. But, I think that's probably over the edge.

[neurogeek]

Originally Posted by manavi

I think jjjoy's point is that CRNA's with less ICU experience will be less marketable and will have fewer viable employment alternatives to being a CRNA. Although, I haven't heard of any CRNA that actually went back to working as a floor nurse.

Funny, but I DID know a CRNA who went back to floor nursing. I never could figure it out either. She was probably in her late 50's to early 60's & said that it was getting difficult for her to concentrate in the OR. So obviously she made the right move, since it seemed like a safety issue. She was an awesome ICU nurse too. Some speculated that she might have gotten in some trouble & that's why she stopped practicing as a CRNA. Who knows.
By the way, up until just a few years ago several of the CRNA programs required 2 YEARS ICU to apply. I was told that TWU had that requirement and changed it to 1 year when TCU opened their program with 1 year requirement. This could just be rumor, I don't know. I did notice that in the TCU graduate catalog it states that 1 year min. is necessary to apply but that 2 years are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. It was even highlighted this way. Food for thought.....

[magno79]

Originally Posted by manavi

I think jjjoy's point is that CRNA's with less ICU experience will be less marketable and will have fewer viable employment alternatives to being a CRNA. Although, I haven't heard of any CRNA that actually went back to working as a floor nurse.

Still some interesting insight.

If you really wanted to be cynical you might suggest schools are accepting less experienced ICU nurses with the hope of having some of them fail the program and have to be readmitted for additional tuition and fees. But, I think that's probably over the edge.

I don't believe any of these last remarks to be true. The bottom line is that just like nursing, the average age of a CRNA is ever increasing. Thus, there will be many voids in the profession within the next ten years. Common sense tells you that by accepting younger students into the program, the more time to work in that role they will have. I know this will offend many people and I truly do apologize but the truth is that by excepting a student that is 45, they will be 48 when they get to the workforce. This only provides the CRNA community with an employee for around twenty years. Now, if you take a student with one year of ICU experience, they will start school around 23/24 years old and enter the workforce when they are 26/27 years old. This will provide an employer with 38 years of anesthesia care.

At times, I do wish that the more deserving person got a break in life. Unfortunately, this is just not how the world works. Health care is the biggest enterprise in the United States. To say different, you must be living under a rock. The health care community recognizes this and as a result needs to produce CRNAs that will be in the field as long as possible. A gap in capable provides would cost millions and set advanced practice nurses back fifty years in terms of respect and the autonomy we have worked so hard to build. Bottom line, they (the hospitals) would fill the gap and CRNAs would be out of work. So, it just makes sense to get an intelligent, capable person out and working as quickly as possible.

Magno79

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by manavi

I think jjjoy's point is that CRNA's with less ICU experience will be less marketable and will have fewer viable employment alternatives to being a CRNA. Although, I haven't heard of any CRNA that actually went back to working as a floor nurse.

Yes, that's what I mean. Currently, CRNA wages are higher than those for an experienced ICU nurse. But with more CRNAs with less floor experience, they might be more likely to accept lower wages than someone who wouldn't mind going back to the bedside if the price were right.

If you really wanted to be cynical you might suggest schools are accepting less experienced ICU nurses with the hope of having some of them fail the program and have to be readmitted for additional tuition and fees. But, I think that's probably over the edge.

I don't know that the passing rate would be any lower for those with less ICU experience, though I imagine those without as much ICU experience would have to work harder initially and might (statistically, not individually) have a harder time making the transition from SRNA to CRNA, even if just because their colleagues might demand more of them to prove their capabilities.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by magno79

Now, if you take a student with one year of ICU experience, they will start school around 23/24 years old and enter the workforce when they are 26/27 years old. This will provide an employer with 38 years of anesthesia care.

I see your point. However, how would requiring one extra year of experience prior to starting a CRNA program make any notable difference in the number of years a new young CRNA will potentially provide?

I think also maybe since bedside nursing is losing new grads SOOOOO quickly these days, the schools may also feel the need to sign CRNA students up ASAP after they get their RN or else they might leave the field completely if they expect having to put in more than a year "in the trenches"! And I don't blame new grads for not sticking it out, either, given the work conditions in many places. They don't have so much already invested in floor nursing and so want to get into something less crazy while they don't have as much to lose.

[manavi]

I doubt there would be a correlation between passing rate and years ICU experience, too. I was just kind of brainstorming and throwing it out there as maybe a train of thought that someone who really wanted to be cynical might follow, since you were wondering if you were being too cynical.

Frankly, I think 1 year ICU experience is plenty for a CRNA program. You learn so much new stuff in the program anyways, and you definitely get treated like you don't know anything during clinicals no matter how much prior nursing experience you have.