I want to make the most of my time while waiting in the dark - page 5
Hello everyone! I am currently waiting on the assessment results for both my RN and RPN applications with the CNO. Like most internationally educated nurses, I am left in the dark waiting until they let know me whether I am... Read More
- 3Mar 23, '13 by lemur00I do know at least one person who was able to write the CPNRE after dropping out of the BScN program back in the early 2000s (though typically they frown on this). IENs are also able to get licensed as PNs while awaiting assessment from the SRNA (not sure what that all entails) rather than after failing. So that kind of equivalency has been going on for some time here. I can say it rarely goes the other way though, and I really think that is the rub.
I have to say BScN programs don't necessarily give adequate skills training. Mine certainly didn't--we were told point blank we would learn those skills in our first year of working (mostly from the LPNs we work with, btw). If I were a patient and I had to have a procedure done by a new LPN or a new RN, I would ask for the LPN because there's a better chance they know what they're doing. So I don't think a BScN is automatically adequate training for a PN at all. As suggested by toronto_nurse, it's not unfair to make them demonstrate that they're capable (to that end, OSCEs are the typical answer for the health sciences).
Besides, almost any LPN who has tried to transition to RN can tell you this is exactly the kind of rhetoric they hear when they try to use their previous education to get credits--you didn't receive the right kind of education in this or this so you have to take it again. Whether formally or informally, this argument is used frequently. It's the "same" only when it's convenient. And like I said, it's that this is creating a double standard that makes LPNs understandably bitter.
In addition, allowing failed IENs to take the CPNRE circumvents the purpose of having only three tries at passing the licensing exam. That is put in place as a protection for the public, because anyone can eventually pass if they get enough goes to do it (one of the reasons I am opposed to some colleges accepting the IELTS exam for English proficiency actually). In that case, the purpose of limiting the licensing exam to protect the public from people who do not know enough to be able to pass in a reasonable number of tries is defeated, because they can just move on to another licensing exam for another designation.
Besides, in getting double the number of tries and having written a licensing exam three times already, failed IENs are given an advantage that even the brightest PN grads don't have. So in essence they're being rewarded for being failures. No wonder LPNs are annoyed by this. They had to work hard to achieve their license, and someone else gets it for failing at becoming an RN. What does that say about how their input and skills are valued?
Finally, if it's true that we're all part of a team, then the attitude that the RN is always "superior" has to go away. The focus and scope are different for the two positions and both approaches are necessary. But this is really just another way of telling LPNs they still don't rate and never will--especially when the failed IENs complain bitterly that they're really RNs. That is less an emotional argument than it may appear. It's a justice argument--something that RNs should know about since our education tends to push critical thinking and social justice (ie "fairness").
Not that anyone blames the IENs themselves at all--I too would take whatever opportunity I could. But it says a lot about how LPNs are regarded that failure is an option, and it means becoming an LPN.
- 2Mar 23, '13 by joanna73 GuideWell said. In fairness to the LPNs, then, this process should work both ways. LPNs should be eligible to write the CRNE after a period of time and qualify for RN designation, since the failed RN can write the PN exam.
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that after two years of working full time as a PN this were the case. Apply to write the CRNE, no bridging program required. How many PNs would want this option, if possible? Probably quite a few, since that would allow them the opportunity to increase their scope of practise, have greater mobility, and make more money. Why not? However, this is not the policy, so I could easily see why PNs are annoyed.
If you failed, you failed. Time to take a refresher, not be eligible to sit another exam, IMO. What does this say about our healtcare system, and where is the incentive to learn the profession when candidates can keep taking an exam? If it's true that we all study from the same body of knowledge, which we do, then why can't PNs have the same opportunity?
The whole system is flawed, illogical, and unfair.
Having been educated in ON and practising in AB, I have realized that the standards and policies governing nursing practise is quite similar. Since nursing is portable, they would have to be. The CNO, CARNA, and every other Canadian nursing body is more or less the same.Last edit by joanna73 on Mar 23, '13 : Reason: completed my thoughts
- 0Mar 23, '13 by dishesWhere is the evidence that those who failed the CRNE three times, passed the CPRNE on the first try have been a safety risk to the public? Surmising there is a risk to the public because of a personal bias is not proof.
Someone with a previous BScN takes fewer courses then a PN to become a Canadian BScN, because they completed equivalent courses in their first BScN and are upgrading the gap course. Whereas the Canadian PN does not have the preexisting courses. Why is that illogical?
- 2Mar 23, '13 by Fiona59Let's see a Canadian educated LPN has had to show completion of Grade 12 or the equivalent to be allowed into the programme. The education includes all the first year liberal Arts that the BScN completes.
Remember that issue of Phillipino nurses not having the equivalent of 12 years of formal schooling? The first two years of their degree was being counted as years 11 and 12 and then the degree.
80% of the LPNs I work with have either degrees issued overseas and not deemed eligible for accelerated RN degrees (and one woman has a Masters in Marine Biology) or have completed two years of university prior to the PN diploma. So they more than make up for the electives missing. So why can't they be eligible for the same bridge offered IENs?
If you want your family or yourself to be cared for by someone who cannot demonstrate the ability to be an RN after recieiving an RNs education that is your choice. When they have failed CPNRE twice and are still struggling to manage their time (back home we didn't do am care the family did) or don't understand the meds they are not safe. These are the ones who fail for the third time.
You have a strong desire to be right, so no matter what we tell you we have witnessed it isn't going to be good enough.
Many threads on this forum have been directed away from the original topic by people asking totally unrelated questions and are permitted to wander in all directiosn. Why is it so troubling when posters ask valid questions raised by the original post?
- 2Mar 23, '13 by joanna73 GuideProvided that posters are respectful and abiding by TOS, which they are, we are free to discuss and agree or disagree. The whole purpose of AN is to engage and learn from differing opinions....factual evidence is not a requirement, nor is being right.