ADN's being pushed out

[MSN Student]

I work for a large Magnet hospital. As nursing becomes more popular, and nurses not in short supply, I have noticed something ominous has being going on lately. Several of our older and very seasoned ADN nurses are being fired. The excuses for firing are ridiculous. I have sadly seen some excellent nurses lose their jobs. I am wondering if they want to get rid of the ADNs so they can look "better" with an all BSN staff. Or perhaps they want rid of older nurses who have been there longer because they are higher on the pay scale. Either way, it is very scarey. I myself am BSN, and i am not ashamed to say that what I know does not hold a candle to these fired nurses. Any thoughts?

[avengingspirit1]

Sure. A half-dozen or more major well-powered studies published in major peer-reviewed medical journals are obviously all part of the conspiracy theory designed to rip nursing students off. It must be one of your inside sources that confessed one of the major objectives of medical journals is falsifying nursing education research.

Every study done that feebly tries to perpetuate the fallacy that BSN nurses provide better patient care and hospitals that are staffed with more BSN nurses have better patient outcomes serve one purpose; to help increase revenue by duping as many nurses as they can into running back to the four year schools. The very idea that you would deny that all those studies were backed and supported by those who would benefit from them is laughable. Forget the biased nonsense and listen to what real working nurses and doctors are saying. By the way, I never used the word conspiracy, you did. But the Aikens, the Benners, the Haeblers, the ANA, the IOM......etc, in the end all play for the same team. I suppose you don't believe all Democrats would have voted for the Affordable Care Act either.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Every study done that feebly tries to perpetuate the fallacy that BSN nurses provide better patient care and hospitals that are staffed with more BSN nurses have better patient outcomes serve one purpose; to help increase revenue by duping as many nurses as they can into running back to the four year schools. The very idea that you would deny that all those studies were backed and supported by those who would benefit from them is laughable. Forget the biased nonsense and listen to what real working nurses and doctors are saying. By the way, I never used the word conspiracy, you did. But the Aikens, the Benners, the Haeblers, the ANA, the IOM......etc, in the end all play for the same team. I suppose you don't believe all Democrats would have voted for the Affordable Care Act either.

Let's start with a few definitions, as based on previous posts, I am unsure if the correct usage could be effectively researched:

Conspiracy theory = "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups"

Feeble = "markedly lacking in strength"

Now, please describe how you are not peddling conspiracy theory.

Please share with us how the myriad of published studies markedly lack strength, as statistically, they are all well powered.

Nursing should make decisions about the future of nursing be asking current nurses rather than on patient outcomes?

How are clinical trials for drugs supported?

How does JAMA or Lancet benefit from increased costs of nursing education?

[Laurie52]

Right, it had to do with four year colleges and universities in general but it falls in line with many of the same reasons for the BSN push. What I was doing required some transference of thought and thinking outside the box.

It had to do with humanity degrees and law degrees. Think outside of whatever box you want but you can't just make up conclusions to fit you world view. This was a blog, hardly a well researched report. I can blog that only left handed women who had birthdays in months beginning with a vowel should be nurses, but that doesn't make it true!

[imenid37]

I think it is a shame that we don't give the ADN's much of a chance anymore. The associate degree and the community college gave many an opportunity to enter nursing who otherwise would not have been able to do so. Many are wonderful nurses. I think that the time has come for the BSN, BUT I think we should hire the good ADN candidates and then support them to complete the BSN in 2-3 years. My original degree was a A.A.in nursing and I had a good education and graduated with a class with an NCLEX pass rate of about 98%. I got a letter that I received one of the top 10% scores in the state, back in the day when received scores, not just pass/fail. I have also had the pleasure of working with many great LPN's and wish we had a place in our system for them. We need people who like the bedside and plan to stay there long-term. All of the young newbies I meet want to do NP or CRNA. I have an MSN and am almost finished a post-MSN. I like direct care, but you certainly don't need this kind of education to do direct care. I now do it only occasionally when I am needed to help out. I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when we shut out good people who don't have the means to spend years in school. Moving forward, I think ADN's should be entry level RN's who earn the BSN through a few relevant courses to enhance their nursing skills and 2-3 years of experience at the bedside mentored by an experienced BSN nurse. Maybe an exam could also be required to validate their knowledge. This would be a meaningful education. It boggles my mind how we now have programs where you can lay your $ down and complete as much coursework as fast as you can and call yourself a BSN in 6 months. Quality and meaningful, relevant experience are important, not merely the initials behind one's name. We ahve lost sight of what an 'education" really should be.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

I think it is a shame that we don't give the ADN's much of a chance anymore. The associate degree and the community college gave many an opportunity to enter nursing who otherwise would not have been able to do so. Many are wonderful nurses. I think that the time has come for the BSN, BUT I think we should hire the good ADN candidates and then support them to complete the BSN in 2-3 years. My original degree was a A.A.in nursing and I had a good education and graduated with a class with an NCLEX pass rate of about 98%. I got a letter that I received one of the top 10% scores in the state, back in the day when received scores, not just pass/fail. I have also had the pleasure of working with many great LPN's and wish we had a place in our system for them. We need people who like the bedside and plan to stay there long-term. All of the young newbies I meet want to do NP or CRNA. I have an MSN and am almost finished a post-MSN. I like direct care, but you certainly don't need this kind of education to do direct care. I now do it only occasionally when I am needed to help out. I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when we shut out good people who don't have the means to spend years in school. Moving forward, I think ADN's should be entry level RN's who earn the BSN through a few relevant courses to enhance their nursing skills and 2-3 years of experience at the bedside mentored by an experienced BSN nurse. Maybe an exam could also be required to validate their knowledge. This would be a meaningful education. It boggles my mind how we now have programs where you can lay your $ down and complete as much coursework as fast as you can and call yourself a BSN in 6 months. Quality and meaningful, relevant experience are important, not merely the initials behind one's name. We ahve lost sight of what an 'education" really should be.

AMEN!!!

[BostonFNP, APRN]

The associate degree and the community college gave many an opportunity to enter nursing who otherwise would not have been able to do so.

Many are wonderful nurses.

I think we should hire the good ADN candidates and then support them to complete the BSN in 2-3 years.

All of the young newbies I meet want to do NP or CRNA.

Quality and meaningful, relevant experience are important, not merely the initials behind one's name.

Absolutely agree with you that CCs give opportunity to those that might not otherwise have it, and agree that many diploma and associate degree nurses are wonderful nurses, and still many more have gone on to be BSN and MSN and DNP and PhD nurses.

Then plan to hire and support current ADNs is a good one, and many hospital systems are doing this. It values both experience and education, which we know are both factors in outcomes.

Newbies wanting to be NPs and CRNAs, in my opinion, is a great thing for nursing. It advances the profession. It keeps smart and motivated individuals in nursing. It provides a pathway to take the "next step" in a career. There obviously isn't enough room for everyone to be an NP or a CRNA, it drives competition, and helps nurses fill the provider gaps.

Absolutely agree with the importance of both experience and education, they are just not mutually exclusive and are also not fully interchangeable.

[Susie2310]

In my area, within reasonable driving distance of large prestigious medical centers, the community college ADN program has doubled it's intake of students in recent years. The ADN graduates are highly regarded by local employers, some of who are part of large hospital networks. ADN grads are working in acute care, and in all kinds of health care facilities. While some areas of the country may be experiencing the "BSN push", this is not true of all areas.

[avengingspirit1]

Let's start with a few definitions, as based on previous posts, I am unsure if the correct usage could be effectively researched:

Conspiracy theory = "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups"

Feeble = "markedly lacking in strength"

Now, please describe how you are not peddling conspiracy theory.

Please share with us how the myriad of published studies markedly lack strength, as statistically, they are all well powered.

Nursing should make decisions about the future of nursing be asking current nurses rather than on patient outcomes?

How are clinical trials for drugs supported?

How does JAMA or Lancet benefit from increased costs of nursing education?

A typical ploy in academia is that if you disagree with them, then you're the one that must have a problem. It's a defense they use all the time. I've been through it with those in academia before and have have these people to be so elitist and egotistical that no one should dare disagree with them.

If you want to call groups of like minded people and organizations pushing for a common outcome a conspiracy, that's up to you. The fact is that the 2003 JAMA study "experts" were all backed by the AACN, an organization committed to BSN entry.

Nurses, let me ask you one question. As long as a nurse is competent, ethical and keeps up with their state's required continuing, why if it wasn't about revenue, would they want to force you to have to run back to school for a Bachelor's or Master's. What they originally wanted to do was have it required that all nurses must obtain higher degrees to keep their licenses. When there was an outcry about it, they backed off and said; "We just endorse the concept." Even state legislatures wouldn't touch that one.

Nurses, don't take my word for it. I invite all of you to research the affiliations of those driving the BSN push and draw your own conclusions. Look at the funding source for the research and who obtained it. The source of funding can bias the results.

Remember I have always said that it's great if a nurse chooses to obtain a higher degree for their individual career goals. But it is they who want to force you to do it for their benefit. Now through propaganda, they try to influence hospitals to hire nurses based on the type of initials after their names as opposed to experience and expertise in specialty clinical areas. And as I said before, patient satisfaction scores are starting to reflect these practices in a negative way.

Hospitals say they require BSB nurses for magnet status. This is a bought and paid for seal of approval that is nothing more than a pat on the back for hospital management. Some are good, some are bad. But I tell the public to review the hiring criteria for nurses at hospitals and to avoid hospitals that hire nurses based on the initials after their names without taking much else into consideration. Remember that schools are a business and their business is to sell and perpetuate their courses and programs. That's how they keep funding and bonuses flowing. And since supposed non-profits can't show a profit and every bit a funding must be used; what is not used for programming is spent on bonuses for school executives and those who run the programs.

Again, research it for yourselves. But be very careful about going into more debt for higher nursing degrees. With the downsizing and consolidations starting to take place resulting from lower reimbursements due to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), make that decision wisely. I have been interviewed by a CBS reporter who said they would try to get the story pushed and aired. If they don't, I'll pursue another news network or paper. But I will make the public aware of what is going on. Since this forum is mainly for nurses, I probably won't post here here too much anymore and pursue media outlets that reach more of the general public.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

A typical ploy in academia is that if you disagree with them, then you're the one that must have a problem. It's a defense they use all the time. I've been through it with those in academia before and have have these people to be so elitist and egotistical that no one should dare disagree with them.

As long as a nurse is competent, ethical and keeps up with their state's required continuing, why if it wasn't about revenue, would they want to force you to have to run back to school for a Bachelor's or Master's.

Yes the "typical ploy" called evidence. It's a shame really.

Did you have many disagreements with these academics during your associates training?

Obviously the major hospital systems are "forcing" a BSN because they want the local colleges to make money. Not because of better outcomes at all.

[imenid37]

Being an APRN is great but bedside nurses are still needed.

[avengingspirit1]

Yes the "typical ploy" called evidence. It's a shame really.

Again; every bit of your so-called evidence came only from people and organizations committed to BSN entry. The academic "you must have the problem" ploy was tried on me at a major university (not my nursing school). It has also been used on acquaintances of mine at other universities. How dare we have a different opinion than someone with a doctorate! Talk about elitism and ego-centrism! Academia today is a shame, really.

Did you have many disagreements with these academics during your associates training?

No. My ADN nursing school instructors were great teachers. It was the toughest 3 years of my life but I enjoyed the learning experience. It made my 4 year business degree and graduate work in education seem like a walk in the park.

Obviously the major hospital systems are "forcing" a BSN because they want the local colleges to make money. Not because of better outcomes at all.

They benefit in a number of ways but I'll only mention a few. Many hospitals now lease space to universities that offer on-site RN-BSN programs. What better to ensure the flow of money than to require your nurses to get a BSN within 3 years. Also hospitals get large government stipends for have more BSN nurses as part of the magnet recognition effort. Also a major university here in Phila. which is also a major healthcare system has been actually paying local companies to hire its graduates to make the graduate to employment numbers look good. Once the university stops the checks, those people were fired. Yes, it a fact that happened as I personally know someone who was close to it. I don't know if they were doing that with nurses also, but I'll try to find out. Also, it is the large universities that have the money in their coffers to send lobbyists to rally for BSN mandates. Hospital management uses criteria to hire RNs to suit their needs; not the patient's.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Again; every bit of your so-called evidence came only from people and organizations committed to BSN entry.

How dare we have a different opinion than someone with a doctorate!

Talk about elitism and ego-centrism!

Academic today is a shame, really.

Also a major university here in Phila. which is also a major healthcare system has been actually paying local companies to hire its graduates to make the graduate to employment numbers look good. Once the university stops the checks, those people were fired.

And all of your so called evidence came from...well you don't have any evidence, flawed or not.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they just can't consider (or expect others to consider) their opinion fact without any evidence. That's not elitism. It's good practice/science.

[Academic] is a shame? You know this from your advancing nursing education?

Which hospital/school in Philadelphia? Please cite some evidence for this statement.