I am an Indian BSN graduate. I graduated in the year 2007. I worked for India in two years and did not work for 5 years due to personal reasons. Then I started working in USA since 2015 till now. I applied for CRNBC RN license in 2016 and it was a very smooth process. So I wanted to share my two cents to help other nursesTo obtain license in any state in Canada, your credentials must be evaluated by NNAS. I applied to NNAS on August 20, 2016. I had to submit my license from India and US for verification, college transcripts and professional work experience in the past 5 years. NNAS issued an advisory report on November 15, 2016. The report mentioned that my education was not comparable to the Canadian education.
I now feel that NNAS was more complicated process than CRNBC. But, I feel that both NNAS and CRNBC are very responsive to emails. CRNBC more than NNAS. With NNAS, I got responses for my queries the next working day. But with CRNBC, I got replies the same working day, if I email them in the morning hours.
I became very anxious, worrying that CRNBC might make me take assessment exam or much worse redo the course. I applied to CRNBC on November 16, 2016.
1. They will electronically get the NNAS report. But asked me to do an English test. I replied via email saying that I have been working in an English speaking country for about 2000 hours and requested them to waive that requirement. They granted my plea and waived that requirement the next day via email. That was the first time I was very impressed by CRNBC for being so quick, efficient and considerate of license applicants.
2. Then there was a minor issue about difference of names in documents. All my Indian documents had only my first name and initial. But all my US documents had first name and initial expanded as last name. They sent me an affidavit, which I filled, got notarized and sent via email. It was a pretty easy process
3. After that they found out that I started working a month after graduation, but got my Indian RN license only after one year. I explained that working while waiting for RN license is allowed in India. They asked the licensing board to email them regarding the same. I contacted my licensing board, that was the tough part. Had to do a lot of explanations and pay more money, finally they sent a letter approving my work experience without license. Then the board had no issues with it.
4. Then they were examining my work experience. They asked proof and I sent around 40 pages of my timecard, which mentioned the number of hours worked and the units worked too. I had more than 2000 hours in 18 months. I sent those documents on January 26, 2017.
5. On January 30, 2017 came the happy news via email. They said that my assessment was complete. I had to consent for criminal record check and submit a statutory declaration form. I completed and emailed the forms back on Feb 1, 2017.
6. On Feb 3, 2017, they emailed me that I meet the requirements for practicing RN registration in BC. I had to fill a form and make payment. I completed the form and sent the next day, but did not make payment until March because their registration year is every March to Feb.
I made payment in March and I got my RN license for BC, CANADA from March 2017 to Feb 2018. HURRRAAAYYY!!!!!
I read in allnurses forum about many difficult lengthy processes for many other applicants who had to take SEC assessment and NCAS. But I did not have to go through any of that.
That is why I wanted to share my story to give hope to International graduates. I got my license within 5 months of deciding to apply.
If you have any questions regarding the process, I will be happy to help
Yes I understand the competencies NNAS is based on, as well as the fact that there could be some US educated nurses whose education was not comparable prior to NNAS. However, there are many applicants who attended schools which were CNO-approved prior to NNAS so if CNO was using a similar competency-based assessment at that time, there is no reason that the majority of applicants from these schools should be considered "non-comparable". That is a red flag that NNAS is unable to pick up on things that it needs to pick up on. Proper validity testing of an assessment tool would take this as an opportunity to recognize NNAS struggles and fine-tune the tool.
Unfortunately I think you are right, the key is just knowing which key words NNAS looks for. Quite an expensive word search game. At this point, since licensing bodies (CNO at least) are conducting their own assessments despite the NNAS report, I think it makes most sense for the applicant to submit their information to NNAS only for verification to ensure the documents are real and the nursing school is legit etc. As well, NNAS is a good repository which allows applicants to do all of this while outside of Canada, as well as holding an applicant's information in one place. In my perfect world, NNAS either doesn't exist or is fine tuned to be a valid assessment. But a more realistic goal is to have applicants submit to NNAS for verification only, then have the licensing body conduct an evaluation of their nursing practice as the new parts of the Act allow, and then be assessed by NNAS if the assessment of nursing practice is not successful in allowing the applicant to proceed with the registration process. This would mean that applicants would not have to pay $650USD for an assessment which, for the majority of applicants, we already know the outcome. Applicants could pay a smaller fee for the use of the service for information verification and repository services, say $250 USD, and then have a second fee applied should the review of their nursing work experience not be sufficient, requiring them to undergo the NNAS assessment.
Main points are: 1)NNAS is not capturing comparable competencies in some cases. 2) licensing bodies are evaluating nursing practice experience anyway, so NNAS isn't saving them a lot of work in the assessment department at the moment. 3) Lately it seems that nursing practice experience has been successful in getting applicants through, so why not start with that?
If the competencies are contained in the applicant's curricula but weren't captured by NNAS and if the applicant doubts that their assessment was done in the same manner as other applicants, then I believe the applicant has the option to appeal. I wonder if it was the combination of the applicants who appealed in the summer and early fall of 2016, along with the stats on the low number of IENs making it through to registration, that triggered the regulatory bodies to decide to assess work experience? The regulatory bodies assessed work experience in the past, so it seemed logical (to me) that they would reinstate this as part of the assessment process.
Have we encountered any applicants who have appealed the NNAS decision? My impression has been that (regardless of the Advisory Report determination) applicants are still moving to the Colleges upon receipt of the Report. The way in which the appeals process is described in the NNAS handbook makes it sound like another tedious and costly process, after the already terrible and long initial application.
Have we encountered any applicants who have appealed the NNAS decision? My impression has been that (regardless of the Advisory Report determination) applicants are still moving to the Colleges upon receipt of the Report. The way in which the appeals process is described in the NNAS handbook makes it sound like another tedious and costly process, after the already terrible and long initial application.
There have been applicants who appealed after CNO denied registration, if you search for the thread entitled 'US educated RN coming to Ontario' you will find one of them. There are a couple of others who appealed but I cannot remember where I read it.
The competencies are most definitely contained in the curricula (speaking of my own syllabi anyway). Maybe not the exact wording, but this is where I feel it is vital to have actual nurses conducting the assessment, because they understand the content in relation to the Canadian competencies and can use their nursing skills and critical thinking to decipher the content of the syllabi. As a professional, I feel being subject to a word search as an evaluation of my nursing competencies is a bit insulting.
NNAS does have a process for appealing. But if you read the fine print, it's a sham. NNAS has every "out" in the book because the process they use to do the assessment is not transparent so you can never show how it was conducted and whether it was conducted differently etc. Even NNAS customer service agrees that the appeal process is an impossible feat. I'm sure GFNS makes a ton of money on appeals though, considering many people are "non-comparable" and are not comfortable/are unable to advocate for themselves when information required by NNAS was not clear and therefore affected their assessment. Or, people who understandably believe the appeal process is legit and might truly yield some positive change in their Advisory Report. Licensing bodies do not make it clear that "non-comparable" reports mean nothing in the sense that applicants will have to undergo some other step such as assessment of nursing education no matter what (unless they are "comparable" but that is very rare) and so spending time and money on an appeal is pointless. I do not know of any successful appeals of Advisory Reports--at least when I asked NNAS back in November there were not any.
I am not concerned though that the US applicants who had "non-comparable" were assessed differently from others. But I am concerned that the assessment itself has huge issues with validity that are not being addressed.
Seeing the low numbers of applicants meeting the education requirement in comparison to years prior to NNAS must have been impactful on Council. It's not like after Aug 2014 there was a huge influx of unskilled, poorly educated applicants all of a sudden. So there are two possible answers: a) NNAS assessment is not catching the competencies that applicants have met via their nursing education, or b) prior to Aug 2014 CNO was passing droves of unskilled, poorly educated applicants through the licensing process, considering them to have met the education requirement despite not having the competencies. I have faith that it is not the latter. In the end, we are still stuck on the question of why schools previously approved are now non-comparable according to NNAS assessments. The curricula did not change, and regulatory bodies were using curricula to conduct assessments prior to NNAS and accepting these curricula, so, it still doesn't add up.
I definitely think it is the persistent feedback and advocacy of applicants that caused the CNO to implement the assessment of work experience as a means of meeting the education requirement. Many applicants have pointed out to CNO that it is the assessment process, not the skills, knowledge or competencies they obtained during their nursing education, which is deeming them "non-comparable". I now many have written letters to Office of the Fairness Commissioner, who keep track fairness and transparency (which clearly is lacking big time) and report on the practices of licensing bodies and how well the bodies make changes that improve fairness and transparency. Certainly the concerns of IENs have been communicated to CNO from the Office of the Fairness Commissioner (beyond just annual reporting). I think that while they maybe won't admit it, CNO sees that applicants are making good points about issues with the process and assessments and they realize they have a hot item in their hands. One Council member in particular who added it to the agenda last minute in September was definitely concerned about NNAS assessments.
I'm struggling to understand what additional value NNAS adds to the process at the moment, beyond verification and storage of information. If it was intended to put the assessment process at arm's length from the College, it has failed at that, because CNO is still having to do assessments due to low comparability findings by NNAS. It also isn't saving them any time or efficiency in the process--having to re-review what NNAS was supposed to be relieving CNO of also doesn't make any sense. It's quite an expensive thing for applicants to be required to do when CNO has to turn around and do their own assessment because NNAS is not thorough or reliable enough.
If you look at the past statistics, the research articles and videos on youtube, you will see CNO was NOT approving droves of IENs prior to the introduction of NNAS in 2014. In the time period between 2005-2014 (when BScN became entry to practice in Ontario and before NNAS was implemented) only 1/3 of the applicants were successful in becoming licensed in Ontario.
Have we encountered any applicants who have appealed the NNAS decision?
You are correct, licensing bodies only require the report to be completed in order to apply. But some applicants don't understand that and have submitted appeals because they feel their report wasn't reflective of their education. They were afraid to apply with "non-comparable". This was what one of the customer service persons told me. Also, that they were not aware of any cases where the appeal was successful. This customer service representative was very helpful and open, which was a nice surprise.
I agree nicu_gal, the handbook makes it sound like this transparent, democratic appeals process but, when it gets down to the nitty gritty...
...CNO was NOT approving droves of IENs prior to the introduction of NNAS in 2014. In the time period between 2005-2014 ...
Okay maybe "droves" was not the right word to use, I just meant that the % of applicants who were considered comparable was a heck of a lot higher than it is now (, and if we were to believe that NNAS is a reliable tool for picking up on the comparable competencies, the "before" and "after" numbers would not be so significantly different (especially for schools that were previously approved). I don't believe the higher "before" numbers are a result of CNO previously letting people through who were poorly educated. I believe they are a result of the NNAS assessment.
Just an FYI: There is an applicant on another forum who was educated in Pakistan and received "somewhat comparable" on her NNAS Advisory Report. She was not required to submit anything further regarding job descriptions, just asked by CNO to register for NCLEX-RN.
I recently received a "comparable" result from NNAS. Like you, I've worked as an icu nurse for the past 5 years and I have a BSN from California State University system. Would they require me to redo the NCLEX? In terms of immigration, what is a Canadian work experience? Thanks
@ nicechico No you will not be required to redo the NCLEX. I don't understand your question regarding immigration and Canadian experience, can you clarify what you are referring to?
In my application to CIC, they want to know how many hours of Canadian work experience I have. I'm really not sure what they're asking of me. I would like to think they want to know my total hours of work experience in the states as I have never been to nor worked in Canada.
RN_Pro
276 Posts
Yes I understand the competencies NNAS is based on, as well as the fact that there could be some US educated nurses whose education was not comparable prior to NNAS. However, there are many applicants who attended schools which were CNO-approved prior to NNAS so if CNO was using a similar competency-based assessment at that time, there is no reason that the majority of applicants from these schools should be considered "non-comparable". That is a red flag that NNAS is unable to pick up on things that it needs to pick up on. Proper validity testing of an assessment tool would take this as an opportunity to recognize NNAS struggles and fine-tune the tool.
Unfortunately I think you are right, the key is just knowing which key words NNAS looks for. Quite an expensive word search game. At this point, since licensing bodies (CNO at least) are conducting their own assessments despite the NNAS report, I think it makes most sense for the applicant to submit their information to NNAS only for verification to ensure the documents are real and the nursing school is legit etc. As well, NNAS is a good repository which allows applicants to do all of this while outside of Canada, as well as holding an applicant's information in one place. In my perfect world, NNAS either doesn't exist or is fine tuned to be a valid assessment. But a more realistic goal is to have applicants submit to NNAS for verification only, then have the licensing body conduct an evaluation of their nursing practice as the new parts of the Act allow, and then be assessed by NNAS if the assessment of nursing practice is not successful in allowing the applicant to proceed with the registration process. This would mean that applicants would not have to pay $650USD for an assessment which, for the majority of applicants, we already know the outcome. Applicants could pay a smaller fee for the use of the service for information verification and repository services, say $250 USD, and then have a second fee applied should the review of their nursing work experience not be sufficient, requiring them to undergo the NNAS assessment.
Main points are: 1)NNAS is not capturing comparable competencies in some cases. 2) licensing bodies are evaluating nursing practice experience anyway, so NNAS isn't saving them a lot of work in the assessment department at the moment. 3) Lately it seems that nursing practice experience has been successful in getting applicants through, so why not start with that?
My two cents (or 30).