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 burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
we recently had a large consulting group come through. They identified that we could save money by increasing RN FTE's, and suggested one way of doing this was to hire more BSN's, as they often need to make more money due to higher loan amounts.

*** I once heard the CNO of a large, multi hospital health system say that BSNs were prefered (in reference to hiring new grads) as they were seen as "less likely to rock the boat' (her exact words) related to their large amount of student and other debt. There was some discussion about how now that there were a dozen nurses lined up for every open position there were going to be some changes, changes that nurses were not going to like. New grad ADNs were seen as more likely to vote with their feet under worsening working conditions.

I had attended a high level meeting to present some data. When I finished, on my way out a good friend of mine who was head of nursing at one of the smaller hospitals in the system invited me to sit at her table and enjoy the large and fancy free buffet that had been laid out for the meeting. I sat unobserved in the corner and heard some shocking things in the meeting, things that lead me to immediatly start looking for another job. I think I was the only nurse below department head in the room. Even unit managers where not part of the meeting. I remain employed with this system on a part time basis but found a full time job in a different system. This was in 2010.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
MunroRN, your contention that only hospitals affiliated with BSN granting Universities prefer BSN's not only sounds like a conspiracy theory, it doesn't reflect reality.

*** If MunroRN ever said that I can't find it. Can you provide the quote please?

Specializes in Critical Care.

Again, for some the BSN will improve your job outlook, but not for all. Data on job prospects is somewhat limited, although there's quite a bit available for Arizona. In a survey of newly licensed Nurses by the AZ BON.

"There were few differences in percentages between practicing and non-practicing RNs in terms of educational preparation in 2012. Thirty-five percent of practicing nurses are BSN prepared as compared to 31 percent of non-practicing nurses
indicating little preference among all employers for BSN prepared nurses.
Associate degree nurses comprise a slightly larger percentage (67%) of the non-practicing nurse population than the overall sample population (65%). "

This doesn't mean however that there aren't advantages to BSN prepared Nurses, so the question is how do we do that. Many BSN programs already suffer from overburdened clinical placement, so then how do we double the size of BSN programs and maintain educational quality with significantly limited clinical opportunity?

I believe in getting BSN as entry. Research shows that death rates are lower for the patients who were taken care by BSN or higher educated nurses. I have read this on my books. Plus, BSN is considered to be what makes you a "professional".

But the Op explained that while The mortality rates are somewhat (not overwhelmingly) lower for patients who were taken care of by BSN's vs ADN's, the hospitals who had these BSN "Super Nurses" worked in facilities that had more and better resources on hand to treat these patients with vs the "Lowly" ADN trained nurses who worked at facilities that were not quite so blessed with the latest and greatest...

I Have 7 friends who are BSN's, and before I decided to participate in this discussion I spoke with them about this topic (I'm merely a pre-req student at this time, and I hate giving my opinion about something unless I do a little research on it ;) ). They do not all know each other as I met most of them at different times in my life, as well as in different places. Their general consensus on this topic was this;

1. They ALL have as a goal to become NP's, so it were necessary for them to get their BSN's anyway enroute to obtaining that goal.

2. They all agreed that unless I (I asked them the questions as if they pertained to me, since I am a friend to them I assumed that the advice they gave would be more genuine, and not the expected "Education is always important crap") had planned on going into a management position before obtaining my MSN (and in effect slowing myself down), my best bet would be to get my ADN, find work and then complete a Bridge program. Interestingly and as a side note, two of them told me to be absolutely certain to get into a bridge program that provides a BSN on the way to the MSN, so just in case my plans get derailed for a time, I will have something to show for it. This is how they would do it if they "Knew then what they know now." They all just went straight to BSN programs from the start.

3. When I asked them if, in their honest opinion a new grad BSN was a better nurse than a new grad ADN, they agreed that at first, "NO!" no it doesn't. But they did concede that down the road it would make them more versatile to their hospitals.

Also, as far as that coveted "Professional" status, please see my earlier post on page 5.

Why can't there be a third level of licnesure? The ADN can still result in sitting for the NCLEX-RN, and grads of a BSN can sit for.... Something else. A scope of practice higher than the current RN? In any case, having multiple educational pathways for the *exact* same licensure is illogical and confusing.

Agreed.

Personally, If a BSN became the new entry level standard for Nursing, I would be OK with that provided the scope of practice along with the pay in creased Commensurately. The problem today is, well you said it yourself that BSN grads have nearly NO financial incentive (I'm sorry, but they can keep their extra .50 to $1.00/hr raise), and no professional incentive (as ADN and BSN are limited to the same scope of practice).

NOW, Lets say the hourly raise in enough to pay for the additional cost of the BSN in 1 yr to 18 months tops (with no overtime), and the BSN's scope increased to include those things that experienced RN's KNOW they are capable of doing but can't (you guys would know those things better than I-I'm pre-req, remember :) ), then I'd say "Sure, lets do it!"

Other than that, I just don't see how it could be justified after decades of outstanding ADN's prove that it just isn't necessary...

Specializes in Critical Care.
*** I once heard the CNO of a large, multi hospital health system say that BSNs were prefered (in reference to hiring new grads) as they were seen as "less likely to rock the boat' (her exact words) related to their large amount of student and other debt. There was some discussion about how now that there were a dozen nurses lined up for every open position there were going to be some changes, changes that nurses were not going to like. New grad ADNs were seen as more likely to vote with their feet under worsening working conditions.

I had attended a high level meeting to present some data. When I finished, on my way out a good friend of mine who was head of nursing at one of the smaller hospitals in the system invited me to sit at her table and enjoy the large and fancy free buffet that had been laid out for the meeting. I sat unobserved in the corner and heard some shocking things in the meeting, things that lead me to immediatly start looking for another job. I think I was the only nurse below department head in the room. Even unit managers where not part of the meeting. I remain employed with this system on a part time basis but found a full time job in a different system. This was in 2010.

Thank you for sharing this inside info into what is going on in your system and obviously is a blue print for many other systems as well. They all seem to jump on the bandwagon with the same strategy and plans like hourly rounding, scripting, etc. It gives people a warning of what to expect, to try to prepare and hopefully thru increased unionization have some control over working conditions. Without unions you really have no real say in working conditions and even if you are blessed with good conditions it could change in an instant and then your only recourse is to vote with your feet or stay put and struggle!

Where I live we have RN's from ADN, BSN to direct entry masters RN NP programs and at least half the staff are on their way to getting an NP and will leave the hospitals as soon as they are able. I work with agency nurses who have shared their experiences at other hospitals and systems. A pattern emerges of getting rid of older staff, increasing the workload till there is a lot of turnover and then eventually reversing course and improving working conditions after they have either achieved their original goal or decided the turnover was too much. Those who have unions should thank their lucky stars that they at least have a say in working conditions!

Except for periods around WWII there really hasn't been a nursing "shortage" in modern history. Am willing to bet any one of us could then and now go through state BON listings of RNs and find a vast supply of nurses with vaild licences without restrictions. What there has been a shortage of is nurses and or females willing to put up with the nonesense that facilities were pleased to call working conditions.

Marriage was the traditional way to leave the profession at least full time, but most kept their licenses active "just in case" though a good number simply let them lapse and thus closed the doors for good. However when circumstances required those with vaild licenses could and did come flooding back to the floors, the recent crush of experienced nurses who returned to work in light of the recent economic crisis proves this.

Yet for all the government wailing about a shortage of nurses they continue to drink the Kool-Aide poured out by hospital systems. I for one would love Congress to hold hearings and the DOL get involved looking into the working conditions, job actions and other tricks facilities play with nursing staff.

For all this talk about modern times and nursing being a *Profession* far as things are in most places you'd swear we were living during the Eisenhower administration.

Nurses are still treated like a pack of silly women that need to be lead and managed. Worse the ones you'd think would be in their corner (supervisors, nursing service administrators and management) are right up there twisting the screws. Back in the day when head nurses, supervisors and DONs rose up through the ranks from the floors most were at least fair because they understood where you were coming from.

Well, I wouldn't say there's *no* professional incentive to getting a BSN over ADN. Your BSN will open more doors, especially in the long run. But, for many, it's not enough to justify all the extra time and tuition costs. Particularly if a BSN makes about the same as a ADN. The only thing that justifies more pay and more "prestige" (or whatever) is an expanded scope of practice.

I believe in getting BSN as entry. Research shows that death rates are lower for the patients who were taken care by BSN or higher educated nurses. I have read this on my books. Plus, BSN is considered to be what makes you a "professional".
You know, everyone keeps mentioning these "studies" that could very well be flawed. Hospitals with a higher percentage of BSNs ALSO tend to be the larger, metropolitan ones that have all the best equipment and (more importantly) access to doctors who are specialists in their field. And even with this HUGE bias, the difference in outcome rates is negligible, less than 1%..... does *anyone* have any first hand, anecdotal experiences that actually demonstrated to them that the ADNs they work with are less prepared than the BSNs they work with???
My BSN is useless.GotchaSooo tired of this discussion
Who said your BSN is useless? It enabled you to sit for the NCLEX and become a registered nurse. And if you want to go on to advanced practice, of course it's a plus to have a BSN over ADN. But, at the bedside RN level, I don't think it *necessarily* makes you a better nurse. Maybe you're a better nurse than the ADN working next to you..... and maybe you're not.....
."[/u]

I say this because, "So what if those other professionals all have to have a Bachelor degree as an entry requirement." This is because the education and skills covered in those Bachelor degree programs in their entirety are necessary to do the job. But if there is decade upon decade of evidence telling us that ADN grads can carry out the job as well as (or for the sake of argument, in the ballpark of) BSN grads, then the entirety of a BSN curriculum is obviously NOT the necessary entry requirement of the field. You argue that Nurses should get a mandatory BSN for pretty much no other reason than because "They have it, why shouldn't Nurses have it?" I mean if that's the case, why not make a Triple Doctorate the entry level requirement with a "Nobel in 10" to follow as a condition of continued employment? That'll sure show those other professions how seriously they should take Nursing!

BTW, If you are paid hourly, you are a wage earner, It doesn't matter what your employer or anyone else calls it. Salary is a yearly base pay.

Also, I'd like to point out that this post could be taken a bit as an insult for the recipient, so let me add that that is not my intention, but as I lack the ability to get my point across in any other way this is the best I could do.

First, I'm not insulted.

Secondly, I didn't argue that there should be a mandatory BSN. In fact, I said, "I don't care what path anyone chooses" or something close to that. I'm just saying, it's useless to advocate for more wages, more respect, or more anything without raising any expectations on the nurse's end. You see nurses saying all the time, "Why should BSN prepared nurses get paid more when they do the exact same job?" Well, why should any nurse get paid more than what they've been settling for when they have the exact same standards? It's the whole, "you have to give a little to get a little" concept.

Finally, I know the difference between wages and salary very well. That's exactly why I said wage (not salary) because nurses, while wanting to be "professionals," get paid wages, while almost every other profession you can point a finger at gets a salary. Of course, most salary positions employ people with a bachelor's degree.

Specializes in Psych, LTC/SNF, Rehab, Corrections.

A BSN probably should be the minimum point of entry, I'd agree.

Personally, I'm just pursuing a BSN because I'll probably want to go 'Advanced Practice'. It's nice to have options.

I'm going ADN -> BSN. The cheapest, but longest route.

If I didn't have such plans, I wouldn't think about getting a bachelor's. Why would I assume extra debt when I'm not going to be paid any more than ADN or diploma-prepared nurses?

+ Add a Comment