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.

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.

All the following refer to populations, not individuals:

The problem isn't that ADN programs aren't good enough. They are good enough on the own! Here is the problem:

  • The pool of applicants to nursing schools vastly exceeds slots.
  • There are more nursing students than there are acute care clinical placements.
  • There is no nursing shortage of new nurses.
  • Every time a new grad job is posted, recruiters get 100+ qualified resumes per open slot.
  • Job searches are frequently taking over a year with many NGRNs becoming "stale grads"

It has been this way for 5 years in most markets, much longer in some markets. This market trend seems stable. Therefor, the situation is ripe to increase the barriers to entry.

From an employer standpoint, it eases HR duties and gain more educated providers without increasing cost.

This is ethical from the patient care standpoint if there is no loss in quality of care. There is a benefit if patient care improves which studies suggest despite the OP's "new math."

This is ethical from the labor standpoint as it provides less numerical opportunities due to the barrier, far fewer who invest time and money will find themselves unemployable "stale grads."

It isn't that the ASN programs aren't good enough, it is that the market wants BSNs and the BSN programs and grads are out-competing the ASN programs in many markets. That may not be "fair" in idyllic world, but we live in the REAL WORLD.

a

I cant stand this type of argument. Why is it always assumed that BSN's DONT know what they are doing?!? All these posts from ADN's stating "My ADN school had more clinical hours", "My community college school is sooooo much better than the university." "ADN's know more than BSN's"

Well how about this? MY BSN school has more clinical hours, better NCLEX pass rate and prepares students to be better nurses than the local community college.....but no, that would be an inflammatory remark.

So it is around here. My BSN program provided 800-1200 clinical hours depending on the student's choice of electives. I ended up getting significantly over 1200 clinical hours.

The ASN programs do the state minimum of 750 hours, do not rotate to the specialty pediatric hospital, usually have shorter OB rotations, and many have to use LTC for med surg and more because there aren't sufficient acute care placements.

Specializes in Cardiac.

Let's bring this back a few steps. Local CC is NOT going to accept preceptors w/o BSN. Even if they've been an RN for 25 years. Who would you rather learn from? A new BSN, or someone who has experience?

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.
What other "profession" whines about the cost of schooling as much as we do? Just because we're married with kids and have OTHER OBLIGATIONS, we should put our education on the back burner? There is a reply several posts up in which the poster argues for the adequacy of ADN education with spelling errors that make me embarrassed for us. As long as the CC's keep cranking the grads out, nurse's salaries will lag behind other "professions" with similar responsibilities and staff satisfaction will be poor. I don't understand why your kid's piano teacher must have a degree in music but the nurse that cares for your intubated newborn can come from an RN with a CC education. I wish that the CC's could provide the pre-nursing courses while we did something more akin to a diploma program for the last two years to keep tuition costs down while the students provided labor for the hospital.

In the medical fields, there is but one other field besides nursing that hasn't realized the improved patient care and higher salary comes with higher education, understanding deeply the why, the research, and broadening scope and field.

Look at PT, OT, speech, social work, RT, Radiology, Pharmacy etc... all of those used to be vocational education, associates, or bachelors that have progressed to bachelors, masters, or doctorate level for entry.

The only field that hasn't besides nursing is EMS. If you look on the EMS forums, you'll see threads like this arguing that a GED and 600 hours of voc-ed certificate is good enough for a paramedic who incubates, does 12 leads, ACLS, etc, too heck with those hoity-toity associates degrees. The next thread will be decrying why paramedics only make $14/hr.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Just sayin' but there is a 10/30/12 article on Medscape describing lower mortality rates for surgical patients in Magnet hospitals.

*** Magnet has not required a hospital to staff BSN RNs or a percentage of BSN RNs at the bedside. All 3 magnet hospital in my state recruit and hire associates degree nurses. Only one of the three, the one associated with the university school of nursing, even says "BSN prefered". One of those hospitals will only consider associates new grads for it's Critical Care Residency for the SICU (due to so few BSN grads completing their contract).

I wasn't able to read the Medscape article but it would seem that it is evidence that Magnet certification results in lower moretality rates but says nothing about BSN vs ADN RNs.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
In the medical fields, there is but one other field besides nursing that hasn't realized the improved patient care and higher salary comes with higher education, understanding deeply the why, the research, and broadening scope and field.

*** I would add another field. PAs can enter the profession at several levels from associates to masters.

I don't see how they will be able to require advanced practice nurses to have doctorate degrees without also raising the requirements of RN's. If they do actually require a NP to have a doctorate to practice then I'd be willing to bet the BSN requirement will be close behind. It only makes sense.

*** Magnet has not required a hospital to staff BSN RNs or a percentage of BSN RNs at the bedside. All 3 magnet hospital in my state recruit and hire associates degree nurses. Only one of the three, the one associated with the university school of nursing, even says "BSN prefered". One of those hospitals will only consider associates new grads for it's Critical Care Residency for the SICU (due to so few BSN grads completing their contract).

I wasn't able to read the Medscape article but it would seem that it is evidence that Magnet certification results in lower moretality rates but says nothing about BSN vs ADN RNs.

Right about the first part. As of now the BSN requirement applies only to nurse managers.

From the ANCC website:

BlackDot.aspx Effective 1/1/2011 (at time of application) - 75% Nurse Managers must have a degree in nursing

(baccalaureate or graduate degree)

BlackDot.aspx Effective 1/1/2013 (at time of application) - 100% Nurse Managers must have a degree in nursing

(baccalaureate or graduate degree)

But after 2013 magnet hospitals will have to present a plan to have 80% of all RNs with BSNs.

Organizations submitting documentation anytime on or after June 1, 2013, regardless of the application date, will be expected to address the new education SOE: "Provide an action plan and set a target, which demonstrates evidence of progress toward having 80% of registered nurses obtain a degree in nursing (baccalaureate or graduate degree) by 2020."

Source: Magnet Recognition Program® FAQ: Data and Expected Outcomes - American Nurses Credentialing Center - ANCC

Not sure how true this is, but the College that I am currently working towards My ADN with claims that they have a significantly higher pass rate of the NCLEX than the 4 yr University's BSN graduates do. So I guess the real question would be "How accurately does the NCLEX test those entering the nursing profession?" If the NCLEX is a fair gauge of a new grads knowledge, then I would the imagine that the BSN would not be necessary for an entry level Nursing position. It MAY, however be necessary to pick up a management position...

The NCLEX tests at the Minimal level for entry into practice. So, comparing the scores is a moot point. My argument for a push for a BSN for entry into practice has nothing to do with whether or not a BSN can start an IV better than an ADN. It is more complicated then that. We have fought for the validation of the nursing profession for how many years? I feel that a bachelor's degree should be the minimum. We are on a playing field with many different providers in medicine. We need to be able to justify our level of autonomy among other aspects of our career.

Why even fight about it. When the fiscal cliff hits- BSN's and ADN's will be laid off. Thank you corporate America.

Specializes in Critical Care.
I cant stand this type of argument. Why is it always assumed that BSN's DONT know what they are doing?!? All these posts from ADN's stating "My ADN school had more clinical hours", "My community college school is sooooo much better than the university." "ADN's know more than BSN's"

Well how about this? MY BSN school has more clinical hours, better NCLEX pass rate and prepares students to be better nurses than the local community college.....but no, that would be an inflammatory remark.

Not to rain on your parade but an ADN RN is done with school and working sooner than the BSN RN, gaining real life work experience which is obviously superior to clinicals, plus making money sooner and carrying less student loan debt. What's not to like about this scenario? In this day and age of shrinking benefits, pensions, health insurance, it's a very smart decision to keep costs low and maximize income!

BSN is just another credential, it may improve job opportunities, but it carries with it outsize student loan debt and for most jobs no extra income. The only ones I know who pay more for a BSN is the VA, govt and military. The private companies may prefer a BSN for Magnet status, but are the last to pay any extra to the BSN RN, as it will get in the way of their profits and bonuses for the CEO and his buddies!

Just remember student loans have no consumer protections, cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, if you default you will still pay for them eventually plus a 25% fee and all the capitalized interest and they will garnish your social security, income tax refunds and wages. Putting your student loans into deferrment or forbearance only allows the interest to capitalize making the student loan grow exponentially. If you let your student loans default you can end up losing your license to practice and thereby your ability to work. Any job that requires a license to practice will not be an option for you and there are many jobs that require licenses even something like beautician or bartender!

Instead of making this a contest about who is the better nurse one needs to think about what the best course of action is for themself and their family and I think the best way to protect oneself in this economy is to keep debts low and to avoid or minimize student loans that are the most dangerous loan out there!

The same people who will defend associate's degrees to the death are often the same people who gripe about not being seen as a "professional."

So, you want to be seen as a professional, but you want to keep the training at the technical school level? How many professionals go to community college?

Most of the people who go to the community college around here are going to be some sort of tech/assistant, or to be a welder, auto repairman, or just as a stepping stone to the University.

I don't really care what path anyone chooses, but until we are on the same playing field with other professions (which require at LEAST a bachelor's degree) then it's really pointless to complain about or demand more wages (notice I didn't say salary), respect, etc.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Again, there's little doubt that the current BSN curriculum model is better than the 1965 ADN model, which is what some posters seem to be comparing. However, over the past 40 years ADN programs have progressively co-opted the BSN model, to the point were many ADN programs, through their affiliations with BSN programs, are now just satellite BSN programs that are located on CC campuses. These affiliated programs share the same pre-reqs, curriculum, and standards as their affiliated BSN programs, minus the general university requirements for a bachelor's degree and the additional leadership and community health class. Given this progression in ADN programs, it's unlikely that shutting them down and doubling the seats in direct BSN programs (as well as doubling the demand for their already overburdened clinical placement) will produce major improvements in practice.

I'm skeptical of the idea that changing the level of entry will affect pay. If Baristas decide they're going to all get PhD's, it's unlikely that will improve their pay; it's market driven. (I was going to use the example of Bachelor's degrees but I think most baristas already have one). If shifting to a BSN increased pay, then we should have already seen an increase relative to other healthcare specialties. Instead, Nursing salary growth has lagged behind other specialties for which the educational requirement have remained a 1 or 2 year program, even though the number of BSN Nurses has significantly increased.

There is some real potential to increase our market value in the future, but simply paying more for the same education won't do that. The predictions of the IHI's Transforming Care and the Bedside will likely come true, at least for the most part. With this will come increased market demand, which will then produce both changing educational demands as well as changing pay, but without changing market demand, it's unlikely that changing educational demand alone will affect pay. This is where an upward shift in educational requirements makes much more sense when done from the top down, as opposed to the bottom up. Raising the the NP from Masters to Doctoral will help NP's move into roles traditionally held by MD's, we've already seen this shift occur. There are many roles that Nurses are already in or would be good "fit"s for that would benefit from masters level education. Then as RN's move into more primary care, care coordination, etc. the BSN requirement would rise to meet demand, rather than the other way around.

+ Add a Comment