[tferdaise]

TramuaHawk, I can only tell you what I have read in my research. I have contacted the North Dakota SBON to get a clarification on it.

Question: Why is your post full of anger, I just posted what I have read, and no finger pointing....

Originally Posted by traumahawk99

from the north dakota bon..

http://www.ndbon.org/education/acade..._schools.shtml

sure looks like adn qualifies you to sit for the nclex in north dakota.

bsn requirement = fantasy of those running bsn programs, and *nothing* else.

[jjjoy]

tferdaise - the engineering model you describe where you have to not only graduate but also work a year and then get certified to a particular area of engineering before being a "professional engineer" would seem to make sense for nursing. As it is, new grads get their degree, pass the NCLEX and as far as staffing and budgets are concerned, that new grad is a "professional nurse" and legally can fill roles and is responsible for everything that an experienced nurse is - even though they may have no other work experience than school clinicals.

[txspadequeen921]

This was very short lived and is not in place as of now. There are no states that require mandatory BSN for entry at this time. You can visit the North Dakota BON site and see the list of Associate degree programs that are approved ....

Originally Posted by tferdaise

IF this is a true why is it that North Dakota requires you to have your BSN to pracitce as an RN ?

[tferdaise]

jjjoy, there are other professions out there that so the same thing. But until nursing stops the multi entry points into nursing the profession want happen. What I would like to see is, once you graduate with your BSN, you take a NIT (Nurse in training exam, sort of like the NCLEX) then with one year of experience in the area of nursing you want to work in, then take your PN test (Professional Nurses exam.) Then after that take your certification for the area of nursing that you work, CCRN, CEN, CBN etc... But I am only one person....

Originally Posted by jjjoy

tferdaise - the engineering model you describe where you have to not only graduate but also work a year and then get certified to a particular area of engineering before being a "professional engineer" would seem to make sense for nursing. As it is, new grads get their degree, pass the NCLEX and as far as staffing and budgets are concerned, that new grad is a "professional nurse" and legally can fill roles and is responsible for everything that an experienced nurse is - even though they may have no other work experience than school clinicals.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by tferdaise

jjjoy, there are other professions out there that so the same thing. But until nursing stops the multi entry points into nursing the profession want happen.

Is there a reason why that couldn't work without requiring a BSN? Couldn't one could be qualified to take the nurse-in-training exam at the completion of any approved nursing program, whether that program also grants a bachelor's degree, an associate's degree or no degree? I'd be tempted to completely remove the BSN from clinical professional improvement... that ANY bachelor's degree PLUS completion of an approved nursing program would be sufficient academic qualifications for acceptance to a graduate nursing program or for those nursing positions where requiring a bachelor's degree is appropriate. A BSN would clearly be adjunct to, not integral to, basic RN training. If an RN preferred to major in public health or business or literature and then go for their MSN, that would work, too.

What I would like to see is, once you graduate with your BSN, you take a NIT (Nurse in training exam, sort of like the NCLEX) then with one year of experience in the area of nursing you want to work in, then take your PN test (Professional Nurses exam.) Then after that take your certification for the area of nursing that you work, CCRN, CEN, CBN etc... But I am only one person....

I agree in theory with BSN as entry to practice but I fear it would only "force" hospitals and other health organizations to either continue to push more and more unreasonable workloads onto the nurses (since if they have to pay more, they will hire fewer) and to find other personnel to perform bedside nursing care (since BSNs have other options than bedside care and hospitals likely "couldn't afford" to pay enough - both in salary and creating a tolerable work environment- to keep BSNs from moving away from the bedside). Not to mention, the push for BSN for entry is NOT widely embraced WITHIN the nursing community, and that's just a simple reality.

But you are not the only person thinking along the lines you are!!! : )

[tferdaise]

jjjoy UCSF has a program like this already, "MEPN is for persons without previous nursing preparation, but who hold a baccalaureate/bachelor's degree in another general field. In other words, a B.A. or B.S. degree in a major field other than nursing."

Regarding who qualifies for the Nurse-in-training exam I would hold my ground in that only people who who are in a BSN program can take. If nursing would move to this, then the ADN programs wouldn't be about.


[quote=jjjoy;2855646]Is there a reason why that couldn't work without requiring a BSN? Couldn't one could be qualified to take the nurse-in-training exam at the completion of any approved nursing program, whether that program also grants a bachelor's degree, an associate's degree or no degree? I'd be tempted to completely remove the BSN from clinical professional improvement... that ANY bachelor's degree PLUS completion of an approved nursing program would be sufficient academic qualifications for acceptance to a graduate nursing program or for those nursing positions where requiring a bachelor's degree is appropriate. A BSN would clearly be adjunct to, not integral to, basic RN training. If an RN preferred to major in public health or business or literature and then go for their MSN, that would work, too.

quote]

[tferdaise]

jjjoy, Yes there are people who think having the entry bedside as a BSN is not popular with people. But I feel it well come, when, I do not know. Its getting closer tho. With that being said, people do not like change. Look what happened when the diplomia programs stopped. The community colleges opened up programs. Again, people think getting ones ADN is faster then a BSN, that is not true, they take about the same amount of time.

Now you open a whole NEW topic, patient safety.... That is what the state boards are for, to protect the patients. There is a max hr limit that nurses can work (according to the state boards), why haven't state boards come out wtih the max # of patients that a nurse can have? But nurses need to stand together and protect each other...

Originally Posted by jjjoy

I agree in theory with BSN as entry to practice but I fear it would only "force" hospitals and other health organizations to either continue to push more and more unreasonable workloads onto the nurses (since if they have to pay more, they will hire fewer) and to find other personnel to perform bedside nursing care (since BSNs have other options than bedside care and hospitals likely "couldn't afford" to pay enough - both in salary and creating a tolerable work environment- to keep BSNs from moving away from the bedside). Not to mention, the push for BSN for entry is NOT widely embraced WITHIN the nursing community, and that's just a simple reality.

But you are not the only person thinking along the lines you are!!! : )

[traumahawk99]

Originally Posted by tferdaise

TramuaHawk, I can only tell you what I have read in my research. I have contacted the North Dakota SBON to get a clarification on it.

Question: Why is your post full of anger, I just posted what I have read, and no finger pointing....

it isn't full of anger... you are stating something that is simply untrue as fact. due diligence, i am going to poke holes in that argument, so we can get at the truth. likewise, if i made an untrue statement as though it were fact, i'd expect/welcome you to do the same thing.

so the truth is that north dakota had that requirement, but they are back to accepting adn for rn licensure, because this was an impractical idea that failed. are other states, seeing the failure of this idea in north dakota, going through the same fiasco? i truly doubt it.

[suzy253]

Originally Posted by tferdaise

. Look what happened when the diplomia programs stopped. The community colleges opened up programs. Again, people think getting ones ADN is faster then a BSN, that is not true, they take about the same amount of time.

Not all diploma programs are gone. There are less of them, true, but they're out there. I graduated a three year nursing school two years ago and they're still going strong.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by tferdaise

UCSF has a program like this already, "MEPN is for persons without previous nursing preparation, but who hold a baccalaureate/bachelor's degree in another general field. In other words, a B.A. or B.S. degree in a major field other than nursing."

Such programs help students witha bachelor's leapfrog over the BSN requirement for a MSN. That's a different issue.

The kind of stepped approach you outlined (graduate, sit for training license, practice as a trainee for a year, sit for professional license) seems more important professionally than requiring a BSN to qualify for professional practice as an RN. It might be easier to get the nursing community to embrace that kind of stepped approach without tying it together with the divisive, touch issue of entry to practice.

If I had to put my weight behind one or the other, I'd put it behind a stepped approach to professional licensure as opposed to BSN for entry - at least for now. One step at a time.