BostonFNP Guide 50,453 Views
Joined: Apr 4, '11;
Posts: 5,200 (63% Liked)
; Likes: 13,258
I'm still waiting on the "breaking news" we have been promised for years exposing the conspiracy of nursing academia. I swear I'll send you a Starbucks gift card if it ever comes out and they will verify that "avenging spirit" was their deep throat.
The facts are in the study itself; but you have to know have to sift through all the corporate-speak. Something you don't seem to be able to do. It requires thinking outside the box, which is how most problems in the real world get solved. And by the way I said "backed" not funded. There is a difference which involves simple reading comprehension. Get away from the corporate-speak, learn to think for yourself, then post post me back. And yes, I've seen many other sites and blogs and plenty of nurses are angry. And I will keep pushing till there's more spotlight on this specific topic. There has been much recent news about the expense and nonsense going on at four year schools. Move away from sheltered thought and read about it.
And I won't stop until I stir more nurses into action. I met with a reporter a coupe of years ago and can do more this time. There are thousands of real working nurses that agree. These are some of the facts I'm putting out there; and I invite anyone to read the study for themselves.
The authors simply took the template they had for a previous study on nurse to patient ratios and mortality rates and by their own admission, manipulated the data no less than 133 times supposedly without bias to make it fit the mold for the BSN study.
The authors also admitted to excluding hospitals that didn't fit their data set. The criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the "so-called" 'experts' creating the study.
And all those 'experts' were backed by those with pro-BSN agendas such as the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing).
But they insist that you have to trust their 'independent verification' that the results weren't biased.
They took all this manipulated data and ran a logistics regression model to see what MIGHT happen if they was a 10% increase in BSN RNS.
Now if you disagree with those facts which are in the study itself, well that's too bad.
I can't not publish their name for the same reason you won't reveal your real name. I have published links to the research rebutting Aiken's study on other threads concerning this topic. I work for a living and don't have the time to spend hunting for them now. You may feel free to go and hunt for them.
The head of certain state nurse's association said nurses weren't professionals unless they had at least a BSN. That was in no uncertain terms saying that their work, value and contributions are not as respected as other nurses. That was one of the most disparaging comments ever uttered about nurses.
The study was implying that patients are in less danger of mortality if they are served by a BSN nurse; and that is simply not true. So if the authors didn't mean to imply that; they should come out and rectify their conclusions.
There is much research out there on the many flaws of this study
Again, all nurses whether they are Diploma, Associates or Bachelor prepared make valuable contributions every day and have shown they can adapt to changes in the profession. Too bad nurse's associations no longer recognize that.
Sure of course, but there is honestly nothing wrong with marijuana.
How on earth would it not be more lucrative? There's no better guarantee of a steady student base than pushing someone through some accelerated RN program with the guarantee of advance education regardless of experience. The amount of student loss to the career field goes way down if they lose anyone ever. That's a lot they save on recruitment and improves their bottom line with a steady student population that will be charged more at the specific intervals studies call for.
OH come on. So you have no idea why disclosures are important. You've no idea why bias or conflict of interest matters?
The source of funding is very important in evaluating research. Especially when the studies are low quality to begin with. There was a thread a long while back where you posted a lot of this "research" you so often cite, and I explained quite thoroughly why all of it was heavily biased towards the null.
I completely agree about nurse staffing levels being a factor in mortality rates. But the topics of staffing levels and nurse education and their effect on mortality rates are mutually exclusive and should have been examined in that way if the authors really wanted to imply that RN education levels affected patient outcomes.
I can not trust based on just their say-so that they completely and objectively factored all impertinent data while they factored in only relevant data.
It was not original research. I also must ask why they didn't want to take the time to do a completely original study on nurse education levels. And then looking at who supported the study, I question as to whether it was truly unbiased. Don't know if Aiken is still teaching classroom nursing courses, but I highly doubt she would have accepted a paper from a student that was built on a previous paper handed in. I spoke with a couple of Univ. of Penn nurses and they didn't even know who she was.
You seem to like the word conspiracy. I really haven't heard the word used much since Oliver Stone's JFK movie. But I am merely saying that there are multiple organizations benefiting from people being driven back to colleges and universities. It's not conspiracy; it's business.
On a positive note, you are working for a major corporation that will likely pay a decent wage with benefits reflective of working for such a corporation. If the support and structure is in place, it can be a good place for any NP regardless of being new or not. I wouldn't be worried about being pigeon-holed there because you are still doing some primary care (albeit probably mostly urgent care). All of those skills are transferable to to traditional clinics. If you were starting out in a specialty area then I would be more concerned.
The information about using gross estimations and then and then making an estimation about what MIGHT happen if there was a 10% increase in BSN nurses are buried in the body of the study.
Funny, one of my former nursing professors , who did have a doctorate left my nursing school to help run a dept at a four year nursing school. She had always been one to defend 3 year nursing diploma education. But when I went to see her at the university, she did a complete turn-around and even quoted a statement from the March 2011 "It's Academic" article in Nursing Spectrum. I understand she had to tow the company line and we both nodded to each-other as I told her I understood. I understand it's a business. And I would respect those pushing it if they would come out and admit instead of this phony nonsense about elevating the profession.
If I had solid proof that taking courses such as "Sociology of Nursing", "Theoretical Foundations of Nursing" would help heal patients, then I would agree that having a BSN could help patients.
This may be hard for you to believe, but I am about helping people and doing what's best to accomplish that. My mother died a few months ago because I believe the staff did not recognize the early signs of Sepsis. When I visited her the first day and saw her vital signs, I asked if she was being evaluated for Sepsis protocol. They just told me they were working within hospital parameters. How about a BSN program to teach nurses how to better recognize early signs of sepsis, diabetes complications or new wound healing methods or new methods to accelerate healing and speed recovery. Give me those things instead of just writing more APA format papers and I'll agree that a BSN is worthwhile and needed.
Everything I said about the Aiken study was true and in the study itself; which I'm starting to doubt you even read through.
Well, consider it. Columbia has a well-known DE program, right? Why wouldn't we be as scrutinizing of their results as we are of studies funded by drug companies?
There's no need to sensationalize my comment with a "fake news" follow-up.
Without RN experience, I think PAs will see they easily have the upper hand in their education, and physicians and legislators will also make our education an easy target.
And, hopefully we all can agree that studies funded by nursing organizations, for nursing organizations, are not high yield evidence. Anyone can immediately dismiss them simply for that fact.
We need to do better for ourselves. PAs are adding on more education - see the PA doctorate at Lynchburg and the DMS at LMU - while we are lessening ours?
Advertise With Us