BSN mandatory by 2010???

From the Journal of Nurse Managers:

The Association of California Nurse Leaders has developed an initiative to require the baccalaureate in nursing as the credential for entry into practice as a registered nurse by the year 2010 in the state of California. When nursing is compared to other healthcare professions, such as pharmacy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy, it becomes obvious that educational requirements for nurses must be updated. Nursing leaders have developed a 10-year action plan to change the entry-level educational requirements for California nurses.

I won't turn this into a ADN vs. BSN drudge match with my personal opinions. Just wanted to confirm the rumor.

There was just such an initiative in 1965.

And in the 1978.

And 1985.

And 1992.

And 2000.

And last year.

And probably in 10 yrs.

And 10 yrs after that.

The issue is so polarized, it will be decades before any such initiative gains any traction.

There is a difference between an 'initiative', and actual rules. There are always initiatives. But that doesn't change the rules.

In actuality, the ONLY place it's been tried is N. Dakota, and while they DID manage, over 10 yrs, to inch BSN to 50%, they were not able to come near their goals, and they were unable to recruit nurses INTO the state, and so, repealed the law after 10 yrs.

NY was considering actually making it mandatory to get BSN in 10 yrs, but the failure in N. Dakota caused NY to effectively table the issue a few yrs ago, and it hasn't come back up.

N. Dakota's failure with BSN mandates has set the tone that all other boards will follow for some time to come.

Is the rumor of an initiative true? Yes. Will it become a Board rule or law? No way, not this decade, not the next.

~faith,

Timothy.

With the "shortage" and all, it doesn't seem practical.

There's only ONE rationale that I can see for BSN mandatory in CA and THAT is to completely bust the ratio law.

Causing staff to plummet will MANDATE making changes to the law to completely undermine it. AFTER that occurs, the BSN mandate would simply be ruled unworkable and repealed.

The result: no ratio law.

At THIS juncture, I would consider any true advancement of this issue as a direct challenge to the Ratio Law.

It's simply not an issue that can be done piecemeal, state by state. Any such change would require both consensus and a national mandate. The ANA has effectively polarized the debate so that consensus is decades into the future.

~faith,

Timothy.

Haven't heard anything about it. Just because some nursing group wants a BSN requirement doesn't mean the actual BRN is considering it.

I don't see anything in recent board minutes that mentions such a proposal either. If they are considering something new, it usually shows up in the minutes ... sooner or later.

Seems to me like the board is preoccupied with a lot of other issues ... like trying to figure out how to get more students into the programs we have now.

So I guess this "rumor" will be the great excuse to get into same old debate ...

My degree is better than yours ... nah, nah, nah, nah, nah ...

*yawn*

Never going to happen in California. No way and no how. We just don't have the BSN programs available to handle the demands. The last I read (last spring for a paper in my MSN program), 70% of nurses in California are ADN grads as our community college system is so historically entwined with nursing. Our Governator pledged $30 million in grant money to expand the community college nursing programs just one year ago. I am currently working on my MSN to become faculty probably at the ADN level because of the faculty shortage. You can come up with all of the initiatives you want, but the work force just isn't there and there isn't a system in place large enough to train a BSN work force. Not in California.

There would be all BSN's if the pay differential were there. Lets say, even 7-8 dollars per hour for a BSN. But, we all know that is not going to happen.

Not going to happen.

where would they get the nurses?

we are way short of nurses as it is.

most nurses are well past 40, and will retire, we have no one to take their place, so in 10 years, the shortage will be even greater.

same thing with rumours of getting rid of LVN's.

they have been saying that for well over 30 years, but each year we have less nurses, so places that got rid of LVN, brought them back.

It will never happen, nobody is going into nursing, though yeah it seems like there is because the school is impacted, but more people leave nursing than are being replaced.

so if not enough people are coming in, then they can't be that picky.

if worried, after getting ADN, do your BSN online, or better yet MSN.

There's only ONE rationale that I can see for BSN mandatory in CA and THAT is to completely bust the ratio law.

Causing staff to plummet will MANDATE making changes to the law to completely undermine it. AFTER that occurs, the BSN mandate would simply be ruled unworkable and repealed.

The result: no ratio law.

At THIS juncture, I would consider any true advancement of this issue as a direct challenge to the Ratio Law.

It's simply not an issue that can be done piecemeal, state by state. Any such change would require both consensus and a national mandate. The ANA has effectively polarized the debate so that consensus is decades into the future.

~faith,

Timothy.

RIGHT!

They are part of the Healthcare/Hospital Association that has been fighting safe staffing and earthquake retrofitting for decades.

They are one of Arnolds big donors, sued to eliminate meal and break relief, and care more for the budget than patient care.

http://www.acnl.org/cgi-bin/Article_default.asp?SecID=622&AID=323