"I see your point but, it's a lot more complicated than that. First, the law would have to be changed. And I'm not just talking about one law. There are multiple requirements set by statute that would have to be changed. No easy task.
Second, how do you start making exceptions to your requirements? Any exceptions would also have widespread implications. How do you say one school doesn't have to follow this set of rules but all the other schools do? How you do set up completely different criteria for one group of nurses where everybody else has to follow the existing criteria."
But......IL does it. And IL is the only state that has never acepted EC from the beginning and it is specifically because of the same problems CA has with theory concurrent with clinical in all of the required areas. Very similar language used on their website regarding non-recognition of EC grads.
However, IL has a specific clause in the rules that allows EC grads to be licensed in IL who have worked a minimum of 2 years full time in a clinical area as an RN. Obviously none of these candidates would meet IL's rules for complying with theory concurrent with clinical, yet they can be granted licensure by working as an RN elsewhere for 2 years.
So why would that be so hard for CA to do?
"And how do you document all of these other nurses' experience and verify that they have training in all of the areas required by law ... you could easily end up where you started with the problem of people slipping through the cracks."
Let me tell you how.
State boards verify nursing experience all of the time right now.
When I attempted to endorse into PA as an LPN, the program I graduated from fell a mere 10-12 hours short of PA's clinical requirement for LPN grads in their state.
Would you believe that I actually had to get my manager to submit very specific documentation with the payroll dept. actually verifying that I was clocked in and working on the floor as an LPN for X number of hours over the past year? They wanted manager and preceptor evaluations with specific documentation that I was checked off by a preceptor and demonstrated specific nursing skills/competencies, etc.
It was the absolute worst endorsement process I'd ever been through.
Definitely not the norm, but you can believe that state boards definitely put people on the payroll to comb through someone's academic and employment records very meticulously in the name of beaurocracy.
"Sure ... they may have experience in ER or ICU but, for example, the law requires psych, geriatric, cardiac, ob, peds etc. training with specific cirriculum and clinical instruction requirements in each area."
I see what you're saying here. But again, could you truely imagine telling someone who graduated from EC 15 years ago and has worked in the acute care arena full time since that they need to go back to school with RN students who are still struggling with inserting foleys, NG tubes, drawing up insulin, hearing lung sounds, etc. to meet their state laws?
Ask RN's that you have contact with now who have worked for years in a given area, let's say Med/Surg, ER, ICU, etc.
Ask them how much they remember their psych, peds, and OB clinicals and if they could get floated to one of those units, take an assignment and be ok?
I'd be willing to bet that none of them will tell you that they remember a heck of a lot from those days and certainly would refuse to be floated to those specialty areas.
So my question then is this: What difference does it make if you have 2 adult Med/Surg RN's of 10 years trying to endorse into CA. One went the traditional route in a program that meets all of CA's laws, one went through EC.
Both would be clueless if asked to work OB or psych without additional training.
"Again, I do see your point. But I'm just wondering if you're considering what the board would have to do from a practical standpoint. Their hands are tied in many ways with the multiple requirements set by statute. And, even if they were so inclined, the California Nurses' Association and other groups that lobbied against EC in the first place would probably be opposed to making any special exceptions just for one school and one group of nurses."
I just don't see why their hands are so tied but states like IL are not. Both states have identical problems with EC complying with their statutes.
The second part of your statement is where I think you hit it on the head:
The groups lobbying against EC and putting pressure on the CA BNE.
Like in all of our discussions on this topic, I know that your standpoint is the law is the law, which we agree on.
I'm not questioning what the law states, I'm questioning it's valididty and the effectiveness of it's original intent. I seriously question, especially in years to come, who truely benefits and who ends up getting hurt over it.
In an age of a serious nursing shortage in that state, along with backed up waiting lists, faculty shortages, etc.
Is it truely in the best interest of the citizens of CA, who the state board is supposed to be protecting, to leave this law as it stands without amendment/ratification?
Is turning away experienced endorsement applicants in favor of waiting for the CA schools to pop out fresh new grads to fill positions in the best interest of CA's citizens?