I have been a RN since 1989, graduated with a ASN. Since that time I worked in ICU, Open heart surgery, PICU, Med/Surg and Behavioral Health. I have had the pleasure to have worked as a Nurse Executive only to be told after 25 years to get a BSN. I have a BS in Public Policy and Organizational Leadership and Master of Arts in Theology/Counseling. I asked my employee why after working 13 years a their Executive Nurse on Med/Surg/Peds that they thought I needed a BSN. No answer just demands or lose my job. I told them to stuff it! At 57 I was not going back to school for a BSN when it would only achieve increasing my debt ratio.
Since then I haven't been able to hire on anywhere but a Nursing Home. Let me tell you it is a blessing to work in geriatrics, yet the BSN's that work there are clueless, needing alot of training and retraining which I don't mind doing. It just saddens me that at the end of my career Nursing still has its quirks like they did in the 80's. Remember the period when medical assistants where hired to work in ICUs? That fiasco lasted less then a year.
God bless all of you who have had to face this new fiasco of BSN only apply. I am wondering who agrees with BSN only need to apply?
I don't think anyone would say it's the only "good" Master's -- but it is pretty much the only Master's that will benefit a nurse professionally. If the OP had an MSN instead of an MBA (without a BSN) right now, he wouldn't be in the position he's in now professionally. We all make choices, and we all have to live with the consequences of those choices.
Please see my previous post. The MSN is worthless, unless the concentration is CNS/CRNA/NP. Even the MSN in Education is becoming obsolete outside of Academia. Hospitals that care to have unit educators want APRN's- that means a CNS or NP. Soon those positions will only go to DNP's- that means a Doctorate will be required for the APRN role. Those of us with advanced degrees not in a practice concentration will be relegated to the dust-pile like LVN's and ADN RN's.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
I know you don't agree with the results, but survey-generated data is vital to much of nursing and medical research, and to call it "conjecture" just isn't true. This particular study utilized self-reported survey data for demographic information including years of experience and educational background, not the actual outcomes. Self-report is fairly reliable in demographic information. I find it difficult to believe that a statistically significant number of respondents would have lied about their years experience and their educational background. The study was well powered and used valid research methods. The design of the study has a flaw in my opinion as the outcomes data and demographic data is not directly linked, but it has been repeated many times with similar results.
I am sure some businesses do use it as a tool to cut costs; there is an easy solution to prevent it being used as such: do what your employer requests of you if you want to stay employed. This did not "suddenly" happen; I have never seen a case where an employer simply fired a nurse on the spot without warning for not having a BSN. This OP is a classic example: quit on principle.
I just got a note from my employer that my ACLS is due and I have 3 months to recertify. I have two choices, either do it or quit. I will be going to ACLS class.
Sent from my iPhone.
They study we will not agree on. The study on their point of view is well researched....although biased to reflect what their agenda. But aren't most studies biased in some manner? Briefly... I object that the assumption being made that the improved outcomes over those years is based solely in an increase of BSN nurses at the bedside and that directly led to the projected improved percentage of how that would improve outcomes. The application of new technology, advances and testing didn't play a part in those numbers when in fact it has a large impact on overall outcome. How much of that projected improvement can be in direct correlation to improved testing, diagnostics, and new medicines and not the mere presence of BSN graduated nurses.
I don't remember...do you have your DNP? Lets say...suddenly at 58 years old you are told...DNP or out. If you have your DNP it is a moot point.
Yes it did suddenly happen....They have been preaching BSN ENTRY, emphasis on entry, for years. The nurses at the bedside already educated, licensed, and experienced were already included to be grandfathered and NEVER did anyone say BSN or you're going to lose your job after 30 years.
Never once was it indicated that nurses at the bedside were going to be threatened with losing their jobs. Never. It was changing the entry requirements.
I'm all for advancing the entry requirements. I think it's time. If the ANA was so serious and believed this so deeply.... why are they still approving these pop up programs that have proliferated all over the country....especially these for profit programs with minimal requirements and curriculum. Yet they continue to approve these programs and allow the graduates to sit for NCLEX every day.
It's passive aggressive. As much as I love nursing....this is typical behavior.
I KNEW the requirements for my position in critical care required ACLS so I kept ACLS certified. I paid for, out of my own pocket. MULTIPLE specialty certifications....which I feel are more reflective of the expertise of the nurse.
I have my BSN....I just think it is a sad reflection on the profession as a whole to be so dismissive of it's experienced nurses...who is going to mentor the new nurses? Historically, nursing has always respected the experienced nurses and appreciated them as the experts they are.....it is sad that the profession has decided to become like the other blood sucking vultures.
It's been my theory that those ADN school doors will be open as this is a good business....
That's the crux of the problem in my opinion, we (Americans) give all the power to businesses. Business has pressured legislators to keep their profitable ADN programs so other businesses (hospitals) can staff their hospitals in times of nursing shortage (the real ones, not the current not real one), and businesses now demand (because they can) that their nurses have a higher degree but pay no more for it.
We nurses, by not uniting under some front (be it ANA or any entity) let businesses (schools & hospitals) run us into this difficult situation, where nurses at the end of their career are getting shafted. My theory is if we had united and stood firm on a new entry level with grandfathering for experienced nurses a few years ago, we would have protected the experienced nurses and avoided all this kerfuffle. My conspiracy anti-big business rant of the day; you're welcome ?.
That study on mortality due to ADN vs BSN etc is seriously flawed. The study is from one state and only 7 years long...this STATISTICALLY does not speak for the whole nation...sad really. I would love to see them do a comparison of new BSN vs experienced and see how mad people get with the same data.
I feel your pain, I'm a 1987 Diploma grad who finally earned my BSN in 2012. However, anyone who didn't know the BSN requirement was soon going to become mandatory has been living with denial. They have been trying to make this happen since 1985. Between the IOM and Magnet programs it is real
Why do people compare the education of Physical Therapists, etc., to that of the Registered Nurse? I don't see the point. We have only one Physical Therapist for our entire hospital; the rest are 2 year degree Physical Therapy Assistants who work under him. We already have advanced practice nurses, such as nurse practitioners and the CRNA, so anyone who wants to advance their degee in this manner can do so. I remember when one had to have high scores on ACT and admittance tests to even get into an ADN program; it was initially designed so students who could handle a fast-paced program could get out and into the workforce quicker, at a time of dire need for more Registered Nurses. The one I went to was at a 4-year university, and we took the same classes alongside the BSN students; we simply cut out the BS classes, and graduated after 21 months. I don't get why people "assume" if you have an ADN, you must have went to a "community college." Also, back when I went, if you didn't score high enough to get in the ADN program, you had to settle for the BSN program. Their standards were lower! As long as there are degrees designed for the RN who wants to further their education and become advanced practice, etc., I simply don't see the problem. Same classes, same test. I am fairly positive there will be another shortage of RN and the ADN will be all the rage again. We will need bedside nurses.
I could afford to get a BSN simply because I already had prior degrees, thus already had all of the humanities, etc., that I needed. I had very little left to take for the ADN-to-BSN. However, I know plenty of ADN prepared nurses who simply cannot afford to take the extra BS classes because they have a mortgage, kids, etc. Some of the older ones have kids in college, too. Why should they have to go into debt for a BSN when it doesn't broaden their scope of practice, and in most cases, doesn't increase their pay? My hospital does NOT pay or assist with tuition, nor does it pay extra for a BSN. They take the same NCLEX, so our hospital doesn't differentiate. Our DON and ADON have an ADN. The most I have ever been paid for my BSN was a whopping 25 cents per hour more. I would not condone a nurse in her 40's and up to take out loans for it. We have nurses all over our hospital filling out paperwork, trying to put off paying their student loans. One nurse had her wages garnished, and she has 3 kids to support, because she was behind on her loan pmts.
Yes it did suddenly happen....They have been preaching BSN ENTRY, emphasis on entry, for years. The nurses at the bedside already educated, licensed, and experienced were already included to be grandfathered and NEVER did anyone say BSN or you're going to lose your job after 30 years.
Never once was it indicated that nurses at the bedside were going to be threatened with losing their jobs. Never. It was changing the entry requirements.
I'm all for advancing the entry requirements. I think it's time. If the ANA was so serious and believed this so deeply.... why are they still approving these pop up programs that have proliferated all over the country....especially these for profit programs with minimal requirements and curriculum. Yet they continue to approve these programs and allow the graduates to sit for NCLEX every day.
30 years ago, in my hospital-based diploma program, the faculty and administration were telling us that we should plan on completing a BSN at some point (at our convenience, but definitely plan on doing it), because the days of being able to do whatever you wanted, and go wherever you wanted, in nursing with a diploma (or ADN) were coming to an end -- the diploma was an entry into nursing, but just an entry into, and we should not plan on having a successful, satisfying career with "just" the diploma.
As for your point about the ANA approving "pop up programs," the ANA has absolutely nothing to do with approving or credentialing nursing education programs, or determining who gets to sit the NCLEX. The state BONs approve nursing programs to operate (and establish the qualifications for eligibility for licensure) within a particular state, and the ACEN (accrediting arm of the NLN) and CCNE (accrediting arm of AACN) offer accreditation of nursing programs. Not the ANA. State BONs are not going to stop approving ADN and tech-voc school nursing programs because they would have to have permission from the state legislature to change the basic standards, and that's not going to happen because the community colleges and for-profit tech-voc schools have powerful lobbying organizations and legislators don't understand the details of nursing education enough to have any clue how any of this works. However, that's not going to deter healthcare employers from continuing in the direction they are already on.
I agree that anyone who hasn't seen this coming has been living in denial.
My theory is if we had united and stood firm on a new entry level with grandfathering for experienced nurses a few years ago, we would have protected the experienced nurses and avoided all this kerfuffle. My conspiracy anti-big business rant of the day; you're welcome .
But, the thing is that none of this has anything to do with licensure. Yes, all the proposals about BSN as entry level have talked about "grandfathering in" the diploma- and ADN-prepared licensed nurses, and nobody has suggested or is suggesting that experienced RNs should lose their licenses if they don't have BSNs. But we're talking about employment. Employers are free to set whatever standards for employment they see fit as long as they're not violating state or Federal employment and equal opportunity laws. Even if nursing had already gone to a BSN-entry model and "grandfathered in" all the existing RNs without BSNs, employers would still be free to prefer to hire BSN-prepared RNs, and no state is going to pass a law telling them that they are legally required to hire nurses with qualifications other than what the employer feels appropriate.
I object that the assumption being made that the improved outcomes over those years is based solely in an increase of BSN nurses at the bedside and that directly led to the projected improved percentage of how that would improve outcomes.
I am not sure I agree with the statement that it is an "assumption" being made as there is a growing amount of data support the position. These studies have been repeated national and internationally with similar results. Is there bias? Perhaps, but I have ye to see the published studies to refute it. Either way it is a moot point as the OP is about the pressure by employers not by the nursing body.
I don't remember...do you have your DNP? Lets say...suddenly at 58 years old you are told...DNP or out. If you have your DNP it is a moot point.
I am just about to finish my DNP. After a year of practice as an APN as an MSN I stared back for my DNP. It is a bit of a different debate about the DNP as there is no evidence to supportt hat clinical outcomes are any better at the APN level, however, I see the writing on the wall with it so I have moved forward with my education. I am not 100% convinced it as immediate benefit to my clinical practice but it appears to be where the ship is headed. I finance it through precepting students and nearly no cost to me other than investing in being a preceptor and the time spent working on my doctorate work.
Yes it did suddenly happen....They have been preaching BSN ENTRY, emphasis on entry, for years. The nurses at the bedside already educated, licensed, and experienced were already included to be grandfathered and NEVER did anyone say BSN or you're going to lose your job after 30 years.
I have never seen a post on this website where a nurse was suddenly let go due to not having a BSN. The IOM paper was released in 2011. The ANA blue paper was released when? 1965? I thnk most nurses, yourself included, have seen the employer preference shift as the nursing supply increased. It has been at least 5 years in the making.
I'm all for advancing the entry requirements. I think it's time. If the ANA was so serious and believed this so deeply.... why are they still approving these pop up programs that have proliferated all over the country....especially these for profit programs with minimal requirements and curriculum. Yet they continue to approve these programs and allow the graduates to sit for NCLEX every day.
I assume the almighty dollar. But its not the ANA that is approving them, it needs to be changed at the state BON level. As you know, many of these program are predatory (as are many of the RN-BSN programs). You know my vote would be to eliminate the bad ADN and BSN programs, award the good ADN programs BSNs, and call it a day.
I KNEW the requirements for my position in critical care required ACLS so I kept ACLS certified. I paid for, out of my own pocket. MULTIPLE specialty certifications....which I feel are more reflective of the expertise of the nurse.
Research supports that. It should be considered by employers. At the end of the day your employer can request you complete anything and it is your choice whether to do it or not.
I have my BSN....I just think it is a sad reflection on the profession as a whole to be so dismissive of it's experienced nurses...who is going to mentor the new nurses? Historically, nursing has always respected the experienced nurses and appreciated them as the experts they are.....it is sad that the profession has decided to become like the other blood sucking vultures.
I am most certainly not "dismissing" experienced nurses. I still learn from them in the hospital. I also teach them. Experience and education are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive. I have a mentor who is a diploma RN, she is amazing and she teaches me a lot of "gut reaction" nursing even at the APN level. She would also admit to you that I teach her a lot too as "gut reaction" is not always the best intervention.
gypsyd8
1 Article; 276 Posts
Please see my previous post. The MSN is worthless, unless the concentration is CNS/CRNA/NP. Even the MSN in Education is becoming obsolete outside of Academia. Hospitals that care to have unit educators want APRN's- that means a CNS or NP. Soon those positions will only go to DNP's- that means a Doctorate will be required for the APRN role. Those of us with advanced degrees not in a practice concentration will be relegated to the dust-pile like LVN's and ADN RN's.