BSN as entry into practice; why we decided against it.

Nursing Students ADN/BSN

Published

While hopefully avoiding stoking the ADN - BSN debate unnecessarily, I thought I'd share my experience with my state's consideration of BSN as entry into practice, as well as the BSN-in-10 initiative.

About 3 years ago I sat on a council charged with evaluating and making recommendations on the educational requirements for Nursing. We worked closely with both employers and schools of Nursing to evaluate needs and capabilities and to coordinate the two.

We initially reviewed the evidence, most notably Linda Aiken's work on the relationship between educational level and quality of Nursing care. On the surface her work seems to clearly support the BSN model, however upon closer inspection we could not show that improved Nursing specific outcomes were due to higher proportions of BSN nurses, at least in terms of a BSN being causative rather than just correlative. While her studies did show a relationship between better outcomes and Hospitals with a higher proportion of BSN Nurses, she failed to adequately account for the fact that Hospitals with higher proportions of BSN nurses also have many factors that would be likely to contribute to better outcomes. For instance, predominately BSN hospitals (teaching hospitals) tend to have better staffing ratios, better support systems, better funding, and are more likely to be "early adopters" of practice improvements. Aiken's accounting for the effects of these differences were grossly inadequate. When her data was properly corrected for these differences, there was no clear difference between ADN and BSN prepared Nurses in areas examined.

We then looked at differences in curriculum between ADN and BSN programs and found surprisingly few differences. Pre-requisites varied among both ADN and BSN programs, with the only consistent difference being that BSN programs required a Nutrition class. We had assumed that the Statistics requirement was also a universal difference, but what we found was that this was only different in older ADN programs, newer ADN programs carried the same statistics requirement with some requiring a higher level of statistics than even the top BSN program in the state. In the program itself, the curriculum is closely regulated by both accreditation groups and the State Board, both of which hold the curriculum of both types of program to the same standards, minus the BSN program's additional leadership and community health classes.

Considering the minimal differences between ADN and BSN curriculum, we questioned whether there might be differences related to the 'caliber' of student admitted to each type of program, we were particularly surprised by what we found. Two of the ADN programs in the state required a previous bachelor's degree to even apply, more were considering this. The typical minimum GPA in core prerequisites for competitive entry ADN programs was 3.8, for BSN programs it was 3.6.

The biggest factor was what we would need to do to move to only BSN programs. Our current BSN programs already have a shortage of clinical spots, so expanding our current BSN programs was not an option. The only viable option was to take our ADN programs and simply start calling them BSN programs by adding community health and leadership classes and requiring the additional "general" credits needed to fulfill the credit requirements of a bachelors. To do this, community colleges would have to partner with Universities who would then grant BSN's for a (large) fee. This would essentially mean the only difference between an ADN and BSN would be 8 core credits, about 35 general credits, and about $18,000.

The other concern with limiting RN education opportunities to BSN programs by expanding BSN programs was the demographic makeup of Nursing students. More than half of those currently going into Nursing are "second career" students. These students typically are not in positions where attending a direct BSN program is feasible. In my state, BSN programs are only available in two urban areas. It's much easier for an 18 year old to drop everything and move to one of these two areas than it is for someone who has kids in school, owns a home, has a spouse with an immovable job, etc. As a result we were concerned about the effect such a drastic change in Nursing student demographics might have.

A survey of employers found no glaring preference for BSN prepared Nurses in my state, in fact we were surprised at the number of Hospitals that expressed a preference for ADN new grads as they found their bedside training requirements were less, this was likely due to the limitations in clinical experience in BSN programs. Only one hospital in the state expressed a preference for BSN graduates, although they did not require a BSN, this was the Hospital associated with the state's largest BSN program. They did express that their preference for BSN's was somewhat self-serving; when part of the job market is "BSN-only", it helps maintain demand for a degree that's fairly similar yet typically 400% more expensive than the ADN option. This would seem to shed some light on why "BSN-only" employers are primarily hospitals associated with Universities.

In the end we determined that we could not support the goal of BSN as entry to practice at this time. We did however endorse the concept of BSN-in-10 through ADN to BSN programs. Although we didn't go so far as to advocate BSN-in-10 as a requirement. This was partly due to reviewing North Dakota's failed BSN-in-10 attempt, as well as the demographics involved in the Nursing workforce. The number of experienced Nurses who leave the workforce is a real problem. This attrition often occurs between 5 and 10 years. Adding a requirement that will take additional time as well as cost, in many cases, up to half of their yearly salary would too often serve as the primary factor in a decision to leave Nursing. There are huge advantages to additional schooling after a period of time in the workforce, one could argue advantages that exceed that of direct BSN programs, however it was not felt that the loss of experienced Nurses outweighed those advantages. But when feasible, all ADN Nurses should be actively encouraged to pursue an ADN to BSN.

As a BSN prepared Nurse, I was expecting confirmation that my money was spell spent, and I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, however many of the assumptions I held may have been overstated or just incorrect. For many, direct BSN programs are worth the expense, for other's it's not. What's most important is that students can make an informed decision.

*** Not only won’t a doctorate be required in 2015 for NPs, it can't be required by then. I am not saying a DNP won’t ever be required but as of now there is nothing more than a suggestion by the AACN that DNP be the entry for advanced practice by 2015. The AACN isn’t in charge of deciding what the requirements for advanced practice are. Plenty of colleges of nursing have no intention of going to DNP for their NP programs. There is no need for you, or anyone else to make sure you are licensed by 2015 in order to be grandfathered in.

I am quite surprised at the position you take on this, trying to slide under the (non existent) wire with a lower education standard. I would think that, given your comments thus far in the discussion, you would be all in favor of obtaining that DNP to practice an an NP.

When did I argue that a DNP shouldn't be required? It's a natural progression too. The only way you should be "surprised" about me trying to "slide under the wire" is if I were advocating that not only the BSN be the minimum requirement, but that ADN's who have been licensed/practicing before the change have to go back and obtain a BSN. I've never said that nor implied that. In fact, you conveniently (again) left out the part of my post where I addressed the fact that anyone licensed already wouldn't have to go back to school.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.

When did I argue that a DNP shouldn't be required?

*** (shrug) I dunno. I didn't claim you had. Why asking me?

( It's a natural progression too. The only way you should be "surprised" about me trying to "slide under the wire" is if I were advocating that not only the BSN be the minimum requirement, but that ADN's who have been licensed/practicing before the change have to go back and obtain a BSN.

*** Not the case at all In addition to the one I mentioned there are several others way I should be suprised. Your position is inconsistant. You activily argue aginist what you call a lower education standard for RNs and yet tell us you wish to seek a lower education standard for yourself for NP.

I've never said that nor implied that

*** Who are you arguing with? I didn't say you did.

In fact, you conveniently (again) left out the part of my post where I addressed the fact that anyone licensed already wouldn't have to go back to school.

*** Not conveniently, intentionaly. Should BSN ever become the sole entry point for RN, that dipiloma and ADNs would be grandfathered in can be taken for granted. Everybody knows this as there is vast precedent for it. It's why we have CRNAs without any degree at all, NPs practicing without a masters, pharmacistis working with bachelors , etc, etc. There is not, and can be no, debate about it. There is no need for YOU to "address" it.

I am interested in hearing your answers to the questions MunroRN has asked you. The questions you have ignored so far.

One question for you. How is it that you know so little about your own field as to believe a doctorate would be required by 2015?

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I'll ask again; let's say you're in charge (Ntheboat2) of restructuring our Educational system, what would you do? How would you accommodate the additional students in a BSN program? Would you just change the name of ADN programs to "BSN" programs and add the additional 45 general credits? How would you bring the ideal and the reality together?

*** I can think of at least one easy solution. Many countries that require a BSN have a 3 year BSN program for nurses that looks very similar to many ADN programs here. I have worked as an RN in New Zealand and that is the case there. Why not simply change ADN to BSN on the degrees and keep everything the same as it is now? Then everyone would be happy. The pro BSN people would get their wish of the BSN being the single entry point for nursing. The rest of us could be satisfied that the local community college programs will continue.

I would like to throw in another twist to this saga. My school has just removed it's basic health assessment course for RN to BSN completion and replaced it with an Advanced practice physical assesment course. If you finish your BSN by 2015 your ok, but if not, then you take the advanced practice assessment course to complete your BSN. Where does we think this is all leading?? My guess, how about the only entry level into practice will be MSN/APN( generalist). No way on gods green earth am I going to get an APN/MSN to answer call bells, push pills, bow down to administration, and be harassed, disrespected and intimidated by the nursing assistants and any other person off the street, including the MBA's.

Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
I know all about reliabilty, validity, limitations and every other factor involving research.

I just find it funny that you're so skeptical of any study that doesn't defend your stance. Of course, there MUST be something wrong with the study! If it goes along with your theory, no need to question it! I haven't done a lot of in-depth research or determined what factors may have impacted any study regarding this topic whether it's in favor or against. Why? It's time consuming so it has to be something that's not already obvious in order to dedicate any time to it.

Then I don't think you should be presenting as facts their conclusions, questioning the diligence of, the personal biases of, or opining here with the people who did take the time to look below the surface chatter, because you are speaking two different languages. "Obvious to Ntheboat2" not obviously a widely accepted standard. :-)

When did I argue that a DNP shouldn't be required?*** (shrug) I dunno. I didn't claim you had. Why asking me?( It's a natural progression too. The only way you should be "surprised" about me trying to "slide under the wire" is if I were advocating that not only the BSN be the minimum requirement, but that ADN's who have been licensed/practicing before the change have to go back and obtain a BSN.*** Not the case at all In addition to the one I mentioned there are several others way I should be suprised. Your position is inconsistant. You activily argue aginist what you call a lower education standard for RNs and yet tell us you wish to seek a lower education standard for yourself for NP.I've never said that nor implied that*** Who are you arguing with? I didn't say you did.In fact, you conveniently (again) left out the part of my post where I addressed the fact that anyone licensed already wouldn't have to go back to school.*** Not conveniently, intentionaly. Should BSN ever become the sole entry point for RN, that dipiloma and ADNs would be grandfathered in can be taken for granted. Everybody knows this as there is vast precedent for it. It's why we have CRNAs without any degree at all, NPs practicing without a masters, pharmacistis working with bachelors , etc, etc. There is not, and can be no, debate about it. There is no need for YOU to "address" it. I am interested in hearing your answers to the questions MunroRN has asked you. The questions you have ignored so far. One question for you. How is it that you know so little about your own field as to believe a doctorate would be required by 2015?
Okay...my entire post was based on an article (which I quoted n gave the source to) which I was reading for personal knowledge. It plainly talks about nursing leaders intending to require doctorates by 2015. So, how my sharing an article (which I never claimed was even peer reviewed by the way) and elaborating on that specific article as well as what I've seen personally happening at the local university makes me "clueless about the field" or whatever you said. Furthermore, it's not my problem to revamp how businesses operate. If a BSN is required then the schools can offer BSN programs or not. It's not as though we don't have an abundance of nurses! In fact, it might be exactly the answer to this problem of so many schools "pumping out new grads." every school is not obligated to provide a nursing program. Finally, your obsession is weird. Just saying. Now, pick away, out of context...as usual.
Then I don't think you should be presenting as facts their conclusions, questioning the diligence of, the personal biases of, or opining here with the people who did take the time to look below the surface chatter, because you are speaking two different languages. "Obvious to Ntheboat2" not obviously a widely accepted standard. :-)
I'm pretty sure that your definition of "in depth" when it comes to research studies and my definition of "in depth" are nowhere near the same. Many studies don't even publish all of the variables involved in the study, but the ones that do can take a great deal of time to analyze. Your implication that everyone must do an in depth analysis on the subject (both sides of it) in order to make a reference is very ridiculous. There's a huge difference in reading a study and researching it. "peer reviewed" wasn't a phrase made up just for fun.
Specializes in Critical Care.
I know all about reliabilty, validity, limitations and every other factor involving research.

I just find it funny that you're so skeptical of any study that doesn't defend your stance. Of course, there MUST be something wrong with the study! If it goes along with your theory, no need to question it! I haven't done a lot of in-depth research or determined what factors may have impacted any study regarding this topic whether it's in favor or against. Why? It's time consuming so it has to be something that's not already obvious in order to dedicate any time to it. There's an abundance of evidence on the surface that all points to change. Besides, anyone with a brain can find flaws in every single study...even the author him/herself. Especially the author, in fact.

It doesn't matter at this point. This is a sinking ship and the sea is already filled with pharmacists, physical therapists, CRNA's, NP's, and sooner or later...RN's.

There's always a few passionate souls that would rather go down with the ship no matter what.

"If it goes along with your theory, no need to question it!" - I'm not sure if you're referring to your views or mine.

To clarify my stance, I would love to know that the money I spent on a BSN was well worth it and that the difference in what I spent was to get a completely different education than an ADN, but as it turns out I shared some of the misconceptions of ADN programs that many BSN's appeared to have. At this point I prefer reliable information over blind reliance on something that says what I hoped it would say, even if it doesn't make sense beyond an overgeneralized "that feels right" sort of level.

Even if we assume the studies are undeniable, without understanding the specific mechanism by which BSN programs produce better students we aren't going to get anywhere. It's unlikely that just calling a program "BSN" is the source of the differences. Coreg produces better outcomes in heart failure, it's white and round. Does that mean other pills we be just as effective so long as the are white and round?

Your position is inconsistant. You activily argue aginist what you call a lower education standard for RNs and yet tell us you wish to seek a lower education standard for yourself for NP.

My position is not inconsistEnt at all. How am I seeking a lower education standard for myself for NP when:

A) I plainly said I have only toyed with the idea of getting my NP

B) The MSN is currently the ONLY standard. Soo....that's just silly.

Should a DNP be required if/when I decide to be a NP then that is what I will get.

Specializes in Critical Care.
*** I can think of at least one easy solution. Many countries that require a BSN have a 3 year BSN program for nurses that looks very similar to many ADN programs here. I have worked as an RN in New Zealand and that is the case there. Why not simply change ADN to BSN on the degrees and keep everything the same as it is now? Then everyone would be happy. The pro BSN people would get their wish of the BSN being the single entry point for nursing. The rest of us could be satisfied that the local community college programs will continue.

We also have 3 year BSN programs, Chaplain college offers one, it's 1 year of pre-reqs (A&P, micro, Psych, math, etc) and 2 years of the program. Of course this is completely different from an ADN program, which is 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program.

Saying a BSN is better than an ADN doesn't make as much sense when you put it another way; 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program is better than 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program.

Of course Chamberlain's program isn't exactly the same as ADN programs; it costs $85,000.

"If it goes along with your theory, no need to question it!" - I'm not sure if you're referring to your views or mine.

If I was talking about my theory then I would've said, "If it goes along with my theory." The word 'your' is the keyword.

Do you honestly think that there's no difference between the programs other than the names?

So, students spend "45 more credit hours" doing nothing for a BSN? That's funny because my final semester practicum was spent answering to several ADN nurses as to why I was spending over 200 hours on the floor getting hands on training when they claimed that they, "went a day or two."

If experience is the best teacher then the difference in hours spent doing direct patient care could be just one piece of the puzzle. We're not comparing an ADN nurse with 2 years of experience to a new grad BSN. We're talking about an ADN graduate and a BSN graduate side by side doing the same job.

Take the name of the degree out of the equation. Who do you think would be better at...let's say...making balloon animals? Someone who spent a few hours practicing how to make them, or someone who spent a few hundred hours practicing how to make them? Who would you hire for your kid's party?

I really don't see the big mystery here. More education is always better in my opinion...no matter who the subjects are. People are just too close to the situation to see that. I bet if you ask random people off the street who have no emotional involvement who they would rather have caring for them, they'll pick the person with more education every time. Again, we're comparing new grads.

And yet, I've never heard anyone, ever, actually say that they've seen any discernible difference between a new grad BSN and a new grad ADN in how they perform their job. We've ALL, every last one of us who've been doing this for a while, seen new BSNs and New ADNs start at the same time. Has anyone seen a difference? I'm seriously very curious.

+ Add a Comment