Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson??

[Q.]

Ok now, as I delve back INTO nursing philosophy and theories, I come across, again, the theories of Jean Watson that have been hailed as the greatest thing since polyurethane IV bags - The Caring Theory of Nursing.

Personally, I have never been a fan of Watson, only because I feel that she OVERemphasized the caring aspect, and, in my opinion, dumbified nursing - hence, the ad campaign in the late 80's "If Caring Were Enough, Anyone Could Be a Nurse." Watson threw a fit when she saw this.

As nursing evolves to a more technically challenging field, requiring more acute assessment skills, and as the

"How Women Know" movement which has shaped nursing education for the last decade or so has become archaic, wondering what your thoughts are on if someone can be a nurse and NOT subscribe to the caring theory. Can one be a competent nurse and NOT care about her patients any more deeply than simply getting the job done?

Watson's theory goes a bit deeper than simply "caring" - more so than "caring" about any other job. But "caring" as far as honestly caring about the patient as you would your mom or dad.

Do you think someone CAN be an effective nurse WITHOUT having so much an emphasis on loving her patients?

[traumahawk99]

I graduated from my ADN program having started only one IV and one foley. I primarily learned these technical skills on the job.

I precept BSN students and they are learning plenty of technical skills and that's the priority the first semester especially. I disagree that having other priorities beyond technical tasks is misplaced and pathetic. ADN programs go way beyond the technical why is it pathetic that the BSN programs do so too? I'm not following you here.

i suppose it would depend on the program bsn program, to some degree. i think that technical skills are MUCH more important than most programs stress. certainly, there is need to understand theory related to pharmacology and pathophysiology. i have no problem with that. but much of the nursing care plan stuff is fluff, and that's what is over stressed. teaching therapeutic touch theory as fact is pure foolishness. i can name one bsn program where the professors run around thinking that they're good witches who can ruffle and realign your energy forces. i'm not alone in thinking that nursing education has taken a wrong turn and that students are ill prepared for the realilites of the profession.

an an entry level to practically taking care of patients, the asn is adequate. i personally don't care if someone wants a bsn. you'll learn something. but to require it as entry to the profession is buffoonery, which is my main point. it's counterproductive to take a profession where there is already a significant shortage and require this to further lower the numbers. what is the real world reason for it?

as a medic, i started over 100 iv's in clinicals, even a couple of external jugulars. i did at least a dozen foleys. i gave meds, etc. the education was entirely practical and to the point. i attended a great program, and walked out with a good basic knowledge of cardiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology.

tell me, were you less qualified to begin as a nurse than the student who graduates from the bsn program you're preceptoring?

[LeahJet, ASN, RN]

I'm sorry but do you have the same atittude :balloons: towards the physicians you work with? Do you think anything less of one, who goes to a residence in rural county general vs one who goes to a leading medical center. You are correct, you don't have the slighest idea how I interact with my peers, you are just assuming, based on your own attitudes. Attidues colored by your own preceptions. Why do you find it so necessary to put down someone who advocates a higher degree of education? And you have put me down. And with this comment, I will end this so called discussion.

Grannynurse

Excuse me, but I was not "putting you down"....merely stating an observation about the condescending nature of your posts. I mentioned nothing of your level of education. It seems that it is convenient to use the old "they are just jealous" coping mechanism to compensate for a lack of social grace.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

.

2. I am a new ADN grad (go ahead, discredit me now) working in an ICU. One of the women in my orientation group is starting an MSN program; another has an MSN and is doing post-master's work. Guess what? We're doing EXACTLY the same thing at the bedside as new staff nurses. There are no differences in scope of practice, level of responsibility- nothing at all. Obviously, the person with an MSN has other opportunities in terms of licensure as an advanced practice nurse, but in this job, her role is the same.

I agree. I think we're all more technical nurses when we first come out. Our profressionalism, critical thinking etc. is on the job. :)

Good luck to you!

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

tell me, were you less qualified to begin as a nurse than the student who graduates from the bsn program you're preceptoring?

We're all technical. I think the BSN and the ADN students here have plenty of clinical time to learn tasks and skills, at least they do here.

So no, as I didn't feel any less qualified. Most of what I learned as a nurse, however, I learned on the job, including tasks and technical skills.

As an ADN nurse, I agree that the ADN level of skill is sufficient. However, I also support the idea of the BSN as an entry level, probably because I know it will never happen. :)

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I agree. I think we're all more technical nurses when we first come out. Our profressionalism, critical thinking etc. is on the job. :)

Exactly, Tweety!

Nursing is to a large degree 'OJT'

And having done this for 13 yrs, I feel that I'm consciously competent verging on unconsciously competent. (oh wait, is that nursing theory??)

And to discount that hard earned experience by dismissing me as a 'technical' nurse is what disgruntles me in this debate.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

I might add that assessment skills is the most important skill to get out of school. Not starting IVs and foleys.

Learning to spot a problem, what it means, or where it can lead to is what it's all about. I can learn skills on the job. Teach me to assess!

[zenman]

As an ADN nurse, I agree that the ADN level of skill is sufficient. However, I also support the idea of the BSN as an entry level, probably because I know it will never happen. :)

Then perhaps we should cry out for other professions, such as teachers for example, to also offer a 2 year program as entry level...particulary since they are not taking care of the more sicker, complex cases that we see in the hospital every day...and they are not responsible for life or death decisions...and they are not part of a health care system that is one of the leading causes of death.

[traumahawk99]

I might add that assessment skills is the most important skill to get out of school. Not starting IVs and foleys.

Learning to spot a problem, what it means, or where it can lead to is what it's all about. I can learn skills on the job. Teach me to assess!

i don't see that a student with a bsn is any better at assessment than a student with an asn. making a bsn the minimal entry level doesn't have anything to do with the reality of patient care. the people pushing this could give a rat's behind about the severe nursing shortage this would cause in the real world. instead they're dying to be respected. it's more out of ego than anything else. it's pathetic that they care more about their egos than the public health. theories of caring? give me a break! what a joke this is!

this is about getting people started in a career in nursing. it's about doing the job. why don't hospitals care if someone has a bsn vs an asn? because in the real world, in patient care.... they perform the same. anyone out of school needs a lot of training for it to all come together. people fresh out of any nursing program have a long way to go before they can function as a nurse with good assessment skills.

our society needs bedside nurses, not grand pontificators. i believe that a nurse should be able to start an iv and a catheter when they graduate. in additioin, they should be able to assess and understand the science behind what is going on. the additional stuff that they're teaching in bsn programs is largely irrelevant to what a floor nurse does.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Then perhaps we should cry out for other professions, such as teachers for example, to also offer a 2 year program as entry level...particulary since they are not taking care of the more sicker, complex cases that we see in the hospital every day...and they are not responsible for life or death decisions...and they are not part of a health care system that is one of the leading causes of death.

Good idea. It will save a lot of money.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

i don't see that a student with a bsn is any better at assessment than a student with an asn. .......

Gee, I'm surprised this thread is still open, I would have bet the mods would have shut it down by now. :chuckle

My post didn't indicate that BSN were better at assessment. But there were a couple of posts about skills, starting IVs and foleys to be precise. To me that's not the meat and potatoes of an nursing education. Assessment is. Knowing what a problem means, how to spot a problem, what it can lead to, what certain diagnosises mean and how they are manifested....that's what to teach in nursing school, that's what I hope people are getting out of it, rather than worrying about how many foley's you get to start.

As a preceptor to BSN students, and having ADN students on the unit as well, I see them both focusesing on "things to do", while I drill them on the patients condition, assessment findings, labs and medication.

One isn't any better at it than the other, although I will say the BSN program has a better course in assessment than the ADN program does, but that's just a personal opinion, it doesn't mean they turn out better floor nurses.

[jeepgirl, LPN, NP]

who is that???

[Works2xs]

I'm still waiting to start NS, so take this as a newbie point of view...

Without delving into the "why's" of a 2yr vs 4yr program resulting in no initial discernable difference in whatever perceived ability or compensation... doesn't it seem just a little..well.. odd? I admit that coming from an engineering field, I've possibly developed the wrong assumptions regarding level of education, but there (engineering) it seems to work totally opposite of what seems to be the norm in nursing.

In the engineering world (at least in my experience), if two applicants were applying for positions in my group, there was basically no question which one would be hired at a greater rate. In fact, when doing work for the gov't, most of the time you can't even charge them at the same rate even if the 2-yr person was Einstein-reincarnate.

Sometimes, however, years of experience can be brought to bear. You hear (or see in requests for proposals) that x-number of years in the field translate to a degree. So while the "technician" vs "engineer" roles start differently, they can, in some cases, converge at some point down the road.

From what I'm gathering in threads like this one is that the opposite is true in nursing. The "technical" vs "engineer" (for lack of a better distinction) starts as equal. Then, after some time, the latter can creep up the chain a bit farther than the former (assuming no additional formal education). In comparison to other knowledge-based fields, it just seems counter-intuitive. One field starts at different levels and converges with years on the job. This one starts the same and (may) diverge with years on the job. I'm not saying it's right or wrong and I know there are tons of reasons why it is the way it is. I'm just noting that I can see where some folks are struck by the logical dissonance.