To me, nursing school often felt like a series of crash courses, one in each specialty area. Dozens of disease processes and conditions were covered each lecture, with no time for questions, discussion or digestion.
I can understand the motivation to try to cover so much. RNs currently are hired for nursing jobs as varied as those in NICU, CCU, L&D, invasive procedures, OR, LTC, and more in addition to the stereotypical bedside med/surg nursing position. But is it possible that there's just currently too much material to cover to be adequately prepared for all the potential roles an RN may be asked to fill?
Why have every nursing student cover 1000 pages of L&D nursing (or ICU nursing, pediatric nursing, etc) when most of them will never work L&D (or fill-in-the-blank)? It's great to introduce the students to the broad spectrum of nursing possibilities in case they want to pursue them, but reviewing a 1000-page book of it is a bit of overkill for an "introduction."
And why not focus on symptom assessment and management as opposed structuring nursing texts around 1000 different diseases and conditions? Why have every nursing student study retinal detachment, cervical traction, laryngeal cancer, hydronephrosis....? Cover the biggies such as diabetes, CHF, stroke, etc... and leave the rest for specialty training that's perhaps post-registration. So after one gets their RN, they can take specialty coursework, such as orthopedics, neuro, oncology etc. And it wouldn't take longer because RN training would be much shorter if all students didn't have to cover all specialties as extensively as they do now. And if a nurse wanted to switch specialties, they could take a cram course in just that one area, which would be useful for both the nurse and the employer.
I understand that both nurses and hospitals have benefitted from nursese being able to float between units, but the reality is that after years working in one area, most will forget what they learned about those other areas anyway. As it is, there aren't too many formal ways for a nurse to bone up on their skills and knowledge when changing to a different area. Yes, self-study is important! But for safety reasons, is it really enough to only count on a nurse's training from years prior and their own self assessment of their preparedness to start into a new area?
It seems as if the schools (and BON that set minimum requirements) want nurses to be able to say to just about anything they come across "I studied that in school!" That's a great ideal, but to me, reading 1-2 pages out of thousands of pages of reading doesn't count for much. Having the name of this or that disease sound familiar and having some idea of what body system it affects doesn't really help me take care of a patient. I'll still have to go and look up the condition because I won't remember the details. Meanwhile, because we had to cover so much material in class, we didn't have time to ask questions or discuss things in lecture. We didn't address real world nursing situations - like how we might deal with 6 or more acute care patients or how we might deal with 20+ LTC patients.
Just thoughts! I'm sure there are those who see things differently and have had different experiences. I'm curious to hear any responses!
