[amjowens]

I am the first person in my family to go into health care. There are teachers, attorneys, and engineers mainly in my near and immediate family.
My teacher mom and aunt have teacher's aides, who completed like two years of schooling. My brothers and dad work with engineering technicians, with 2 years ed again. And, there's paralegals for attorneys. My point, I'm sure all of those educated with two years have extensive knowledge in order to do essentially the same things as my family members. Maybe their smarter/more effective than my family members, who knows. But, the way it works in every other profession is the existence of clear educational steps attained=relatively certain, unique titles.

Kind of ironic that nursing the one profession where there's a consistent struggle for respect and constant strife within the profession about who deserves what. Can't help but think it might be related to the fact that someone who has one-year of training, two years, four years, and beyond are all identified as nurse.

[hpcat]

Originally Posted by amjowens

Kind of ironic that nursing the one profession where there's a consistent struggle for respect and constant strife within the profession about who deserves what. Can't help but think it might be related to the fact that someone who has one-year of training, two years, four years, and beyond are all identified as nurse.

Therein lies the problem. And even med assts and CNAs sometimes go by nurse (that's another thread).

But perhaps if we in this profession can't agree upon some kind of differentiation, others outside the profession (hospitals, insurance companies, whoever) will continue to do it for us.

[traumahawk99]

there will never, never be a nursing school that turns out anything except a person who is qualified to be a trainee for floor nursing. no matter what, this is a skill largely learned on the job. lpn, adn, or bsn. take your flavor.

i can't see what all the hulabaloo is about anyway. i make over 100k, and i feel plenty respected. i'm not at all threatened by lpn's doing the same job i do. in fact, there are lots of lpn's with years of experience who are better nurses than me. it's a fact, and to think otherwise is to be kidding myself.

this is a "problem" largely invented by a bunch of control freaks who feel they aren't respected enough. it's nothing short of silliness. regardless of our educational backgrounds, we all do essentially the same job. in my book, it's what someone accomplishes... not what they whine about.

[jjjoy]

If LPN and RN nursing is essentially learned on the job, then why even have that difference in educational level and licensure? Does that extra year of RN training really justify the often large gap in earning potential? In many settings, LPN responsibilities are very close to that of RNs. Hanging blood, doing an initial assessment, and initiating care plans (some of the few things often limited to RNs only) aren't exactly rocket science and could be learned OTJ as much of the rest of nursing is, couldn't it? Isn't part of the friction between LPNs and RNs that it ISN'T clear exactly what more RNs formally studied or were trained in than LPNs? Saying RN's learn more "critical thinking" is vague and largely unquantifiable. And you must have knowledge to which to apply critical thinking as well. With a difference of just one year, RNs apparently not only LEARN a whole bunch more about nursing, pathophys, etc but they also become masters of critical thinking. RNs often do have more ultimate responsibility than LPNs, but does their training better prepare them for that? And if there's a such a large gap between LPN training and RN training, why are they allowed to take on such levels of responsibility in so many settings?

PS I realize many RN programs actually pan out to be three years long, but there are still some out there that can (theoretically) be done in two years.

Heck, accelerated programs cram all the nursing content into a year!

[xtine618]

This has probably been stated before, but it's the same argument as whether or not LPNs will be phased out soon. I think this would just make the nursing shortage even worse. I am an LPN currently and am still in school to finish my ADN. I think in many facilities (depending on which state you live in), there are very few differences between an LPN and an RN (besides pay) let alone an ADN and a BSN. What makes a BSN so much more prepared to care for patients on the floor than an ADN? I understand where areas such as teaching and research it is necessary to have the higher degree, so it should be specified in these instances that a BSN and MSN are required. But to mandate all nurses become BSN prepared would be furthering the problem of the shortage. Having a 4 year degree vs. a 2 year degree is not going to gain us more respect. Being competent and knowledgeable about our field will. As a profession, we need to support each other as nurses, no matter how long we went to school. We need to continue our education, whether that be reading up on the newest treatments, attending seminars, going back to school and going the next step, we should encourage each other to do that. We should encourage new nurses to do the same, and not worry about who's better, but how we can help our profession grow and be respected the way it should.

[traumahawk99]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

If LPN and RN nursing is essentially learned on the job, then why even have that difference in educational level and licensure? Does that extra year of RN training really justify the often large gap in earning potential? In many settings, LPN responsibilities are very close to that of RNs. Hanging blood, doing an initial assessment, and initiating care plans (some of the few things often limited to RNs only) aren't exactly rocket science and could be learned OTJ as much of the rest of nursing is, couldn't it? Isn't part of the friction between LPNs and RNs that it ISN'T clear exactly what more RNs formally studied or were trained in than LPNs? Saying RN's learn more "critical thinking" is vague and largely unquantifiable. And you must have knowledge to which to apply critical thinking as well. With a difference of just one year, RNs apparently not only LEARN a whole bunch more about nursing, pathophys, etc but they also become masters of critical thinking. RNs often do have more ultimate responsibility than LPNs, but does their training better prepare them for that? And if there's a such a large gap between LPN training and RN training, why are they allowed to take on such levels of responsibility in so many settings?

PS I realize many RN programs actually pan out to be three years long, but there are still some out there that can (theoretically) be done in two years.

Heck, accelerated programs cram all the nursing content into a year!

you are making some very good points here. the difference between lpn and rn training, in my opinion, lies in the more complete study of anatomy and physiology, microbiology, chemistry, etc... things which could have an impact on job performance, at least out of the starting block.

i feel lpns are underpaid, especially after they become experienced.

let's not forget that there is no shortage of folks with nursing educations. there is a shortage of people who are willing to work on the floor in what is often a miserable and thankless job, dealing directly with all the grim realities and limitations of the healthcare system. that's why i'm making $42 an hour, and i can work all the $63 an hour overtime i want.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by traumahawk99

you are making some very good points here. the difference between lpn and rn training, in my opinion, lies in the more complete study of anatomy and physiology, microbiology, chemistry, etc..

I had one ten week course in intro to micro, one ten week course in anatomy for allied health, one ten week course in nutrition, and one ten week course in intro to o chem as pre-reqs to my program. In addition to that, I had already taken a year of inorganic chem and general biology. I'd been a bio major to begin with so I'm not sure what all of the minimum requirements for the nursing school were because I already had taken so many classes (calculus, statistics, genetics, physics,etc). Compared to the courses I'd taken for biology, those 10 week intro courses seemed pretty basic.

I have no idea to what minimum level LPNs are instructed in these areas. Presumably they have SOME level of instruction in them. To what degree? Five weeks' worth of micro as opposed to 10 weeks? Are those the types of courses LPNs must take to bridge to an RN? If an LPN can eventually make up the difference by learning on the job and they are safe practitioners until they do, why is there a difference in licensure? Some RN programs require more sciences than others but the graduates still end up with the same job opportunities.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Nursing education seems to have some inconsistencies. It interests me and I find discussions on the topic stimulating and thought-provoking.

[traumahawk99]

i think it's great to have discussions here. and there's nothing wrong with a good argument. otherwise, there would be no need for a discussion board.

[listener]

Originally Posted by traumahawk99

let's not forget that there is no shortage of folks with nursing educations. there is a shortage of people who are willing to work on the floor in what is often a miserable and thankless job, dealing directly with all the grim realities and limitations of the healthcare system. that's why i'm making $42 an hour, and i can work all the $63 an hour overtime i want.

what do you do? are you a floor nurse?

[hpcat]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

Saying RN's learn more "critical thinking" is vague and largely unquantifiable. And you must have knowledge to which to apply critical thinking as well. With a difference of just one year, RNs apparently not only LEARN a whole bunch more about nursing, pathophys, etc but they also become masters of critical thinking. RNs often do have more ultimate responsibility than LPNs, but does their training better prepare them for that? And if there's a such a large gap between LPN training and RN training, why are they allowed to take on such levels of responsibility in so many settings?

PS I realize many RN programs actually pan out to be three years long, but there are still some out there that can (theoretically) be done in two years.

Heck, accelerated programs cram all the nursing content into a year!

Good stuff. I know that critical thinking is something they want you to learn in pretty much any nursing program, but I would argue that some of us 2nd or 3rd career folks come to nursing with critical thinking in place, just lacking knowledge of the nursing field. I have a business job that requires me to constantly be looking out for multiple problems at the same time and analyzing a LOT of data, every minute of every day. I don't think any educational program can make you a master at critical thinking - it has to be part of your job every day. School can get you started, but real world experience is going to get you there.

Also, I'm in a three year part time ADN program. There's the traditional 4 year BSN program. Many take a 2 year ADN full time program. Some take a 1 year diploma program. And then there's the accelerated BSN which is a 1 year program if you have another bachelor's.

The 1 year accelerated BSN is equivalent to 3-4 semesters, 4 semesters being a 2-yr ADN full time program. I'm taking 6 semesters part time - we probably spend more time on psych, maternal/child and peds than the accelerated BSN. Why doesn't my ADN program measure up to the accelerated BSN? (I also have a BA, the ADN will not be my only degree.) Why doesn't the ADN full time program measure up to the accelerated BSN - because they didn't get a BA in liberal arts or English? I heard someone say diploma grads get more clinical hours, spending more time on the floor - shouldn't that count for something?

Once graduated, doesn't everyone start out on the same level?

Maybe the nursing educational system is causing lot of the confusion.