Does the BSN in 10 apply to all nurses or just RN's and why?

Published

Does the bsn in 10 apply to all nurses or just rn and why?

Specializes in CPN.
On 1/29/2019 at 8:12 PM, Fiona59 said:

Canada phased out the diploma RN in 2009. Anyone graduating after that date has a BScN or BSN. The RN's without a degree were grandfathered in and as far as I know, they make $1/hour less than a degree holder.

It should be noted as well that RNs can't immigrate and work in Canada as an RN unless they have their BSN as well - doesn't matter if they have been working 20 years as an RN (ADN) in the states.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
On 1/29/2019 at 9:08 PM, hppygr8ful said:

Actually now that I am going after my BSN I can tell you that while the RN with an ASN and an RN with a BSN - may perform many of the same tasks and skills they do those things from a slightly different knowledge base. The BSN receives more education in evidence based practice, interpreting research findings, writing and management skills than the two year ASN.

Understand that this does not make one better than the other. Both degree paths have some very fine nurses. I have known some BSN's back in the day I could run circles around from a skills standpoint. I am going to retire in 9 years God willing so really had to weigh the risk/benefit of pursuing the BSN path. But choose to do so for the added boost in pay to add to my retirement.

Hppy

I really liked this comment. I totally agree and you expressed it much better than I could - really well in a way that's easy to understand.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
On 1/31/2019 at 7:03 AM, CrunchRN said:

I wonder who paid for these studies and who conducted them. I wish those same people would spend their time and energy advocating for better staffing levels which I think (guessing) would improve outcomes much more than making everyone become a BSN.

I also wonder if these hospitals with higher percentages of BSN nurses are also larger with more resources.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
On 1/31/2019 at 6:00 AM, Wuzzie said:

That was my point. Her "opinion", based on absolutely nothing, is one of the reasons there is so much in-fighting when this topic comes up. She has no facts to back up her opinion, just what she thinks. Take her point about public health nursing. "Many" BSN programs have clinicals in it. Well, so do may ADN programs and back in the dinosaur age when I went to a diploma school we did too. She seems to use this as an example to set the bar as to what differentiates and makes a BSN preferable while at the same time stating that not all BSN programs do this. So does that make those BSN programs less rigorous? I'm all for everyone getting to state their opinion but when you say something like she did you better have something to back it up. It's not like she said her favorite color is green. She pretty clearly stated that BSN programs expect more, grade harder, have a broader clinical experience and have more involved faculty. How she came to that conclusion is beyond me so I asked her to provide some proof. I don't think I was out of line to do so.

Opinions can be based on facts or anecdotal experiences and don't require proof in a casual setting such as an internet forum. I very clearly said, "I could be wrong" and that this was simply from my perspective/experience." I have since heard from several here that have reported their own experiences were different, with local ADN programs being more respected and rigorous than the local BSN program. If anything, at least this speaks to the need to standardize nursing education more.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
14 hours ago, Julius Seizure said:


Perhaps if bedside nurses had better working conditions and staffing, they might have more opportunity to use the "fluff" (if interested). I wonder if that is a part of the problem.

Or maybe the "fluff" will help them become more active in local, state, and national policy making and thus improve bedside conditions.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
13 hours ago, murseman24 said:

I would like to think so, but I whole heartedly disagree. Please tell me one instance where a course in nursing informatics, ethics, and "nursing management". Is applicable AT ALL. The management courses are complete baloney. They are all generalized, beginner courses that define certain aspects of clinical management and leadership. They are survey courses at best. The research based courses designed to improve on disseminating studies are very lacking in rigor and content. Every class I have ever taken relating to nursing that wasn't pertaining to medicine/science were beginning "101" courses. You would be much better served taking a few statistics classes or business courses to get some "depth" in knowledge. A COMPLETE waste of money. Even at the DNP level, most all of the extra courses are quite "fluffy", and none of them are particularly difficult. We would be much better served replacing the social science themed classes with more pharm, bio, chem, statistics, and business courses. Honestly I think the issue is that replacing the fluff classes with courses deeper in (read complex) content would make the curriculum too difficult for some. There are some smart nurses out there, but there are also plenty of those who would rather take an easy fluff class than actually learn some biology or chemistry. Just my two cents.

I definitely don't think that theory and research are all "fluff" (though as it has been made clear in this thread, it varies by program). But I wholeheartedly agree with more hard sciences being beneficial, especially to bedside care. When you more fully understand the disease process or how medications work, you can better anticipate problems. Plus, nurses may be more likely to be more consistent and intentional in their nursing practice.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.

FINALLY, I just want to apologize for blowing up the thread. I'm really enjoying this discourse and it's doubly interesting to me as it is similar to what is being discussed in the current class I'm taking. Thanks so much for everyone's input here!

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
17 hours ago, NICUmiiki said:

You become an RN in those programs. You don’t stay an LPN. That’s what I said in my first post.

Ooh I see.. I misunderstood my apologies

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in anesthesiology.
9 hours ago, pedi_nurse said:

The lack of standardization on clinical hours and experiences really surprises me, but learning more (like for my state BON there is no minimum requirement for hours - just a recommendation), I'm realizing that it shouldn't. That's definitely something that needs to be fixed. And yeah, overall the classwork difference in BSN and ADN is basically theory and research type stuff. I'm in an RN-BSN program now, and as much as I dislike some of it (I started out viewing nursing as a more technical skill rather than something to philosophize over), I also can see the usefulness of it for the profession and health care as a whole. I'm definitely more thoughtful about my approach and dedication to my chosen profession, and I see the opportunities available to nurses to help instigate change in healthcare. (That's not to say ADNs can't have this mentality, but for me, the drive to achieve more and be a better nurse made pursuing a BSN a "no question" type decision even though I hate school. Perhaps the idea of a Technical RN (ADN) and a Professional RN (BSN) distinction has some merit, but honestly, I would anticipate large hospitals still requiring BSNs at the bedside. It's a status thing for the most part, IMO, even if there are potentially better patient outcomes in hospitals with higher percentages of BSNs.

Here's the thing though - even though not recognized internationally, ADNs and BSNs are both equal in scope and capacity to be excellent registered nurses. From my very humble (because really, I don't know a ton about the details of this issue) perspective, I can't help but wonder though why nurses, who should always be in a state of continual learning and growth, so strongly oppose the idea of BSN being the entry-level or even simply the expected eventual level of education? I get that BSN isn't initially attainable for everyone wanting to become a nurse - it certainly wasn't for me. I don't know if I would have gone to nursing school had the only option had been a BSN. Still, I don't understand the overall, emphatic passion against the BSN. We should all be looking for opportunities to standardize and grow our profession.

And just so friends up thread don't think I'm ignoring them, I don't need to provide "proof" for things I clearly state are my opinion. If I make a definitive statement, by all means. I was simply sharing my experience and perspective. That being said, it looks like the issue is that there is a huge lack of standardization in clinical experience from program to program. Not that people aren't adequately being trained for nursing - I can't claim that. But we can all agree that there are bound to be shortfalls in some of these programs (which I'll acknowledge can be BSN or ADN) due to the lack of standardization.

I don't oppose the BSN as an entry level for nurses. I oppose the curriculum. The fluff classes are in every program, it's the foundation of the BSN. If you are receiving a "higher" level of education, that education should be worth attaining. In my opinion it is not. Replace the fluff with substance and I'm all for it. It all doesn't have to be strictly basic sciences. Some real business courses, healthcare law, some more statistics courses. I looked at many different schools for my ADN-BSN and the curriculum was 95% the same. I was able to find one school with an extra assessment course. I ended up choosing the cheapest and quickest one because I felt I wasn't going to get much out of any of them. I'm now in an master's of science course in an APRN specialty (not an MSN, it has less nursing courses and more pharm/patho/chem). I chose this school because there are more clinical hours and science courses than the competing schools. This choice is not available in a BSN, The curriculum is simply fluff at its core.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CPN.
9 minutes ago, murseman24 said:

I don't oppose the BSN as an entry level for nurses. I oppose the curriculum. The fluff classes are in every program, it's the foundation of the BSN. If you are receiving a "higher" level of education, that education should be worth attaining. In my opinion it is not. Replace the fluff with substance and I'm all for it. It all doesn't have to be strictly basic sciences. Some real business courses, healthcare law, some more statistics courses.

I can get behind all that! Love me some science over theory any day of the week.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatric Critical Care.
22 hours ago, murseman24 said:

I would like to think so, but I whole heartedly disagree. Please tell me one instance where a course in nursing informatics, ethics, and "nursing management". Is applicable AT ALL. The management courses are complete baloney. They are all generalized, beginner courses that define certain aspects of clinical management and leadership. They are survey courses at best. The research based courses designed to improve on disseminating studies are very lacking in rigor and content. Every class I have ever taken relating to nursing that wasn't pertaining to medicine/science were beginning "101" courses. You would be much better served taking a few statistics classes or business courses to get some "depth" in knowledge. A COMPLETE waste of money. Even at the DNP level, most all of the extra courses are quite "fluffy", and none of them are particularly difficult. We would be much better served replacing the social science themed classes with more pharm, bio, chem, statistics, and business courses. Honestly I think the issue is that replacing the fluff classes with courses deeper in (read complex) content would make the curriculum too difficult for some. There are some smart nurses out there, but there are also plenty of those who would rather take an easy fluff class than actually learn some biology or chemistry. Just my two cents.

So is your argument that nursing should keep the informatics, ethics, research, management, and leadership courses in the curriculum, but make them harder (as well as the hard sciences)? I can't say that I would argue with that at all. I think its a good idea.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in anesthesiology.
On 2/1/2019 at 9:53 PM, Julius Seizure said:

So is your argument that nursing should keep the informatics, ethics, research, management, and leadership courses in the curriculum, but make them harder (as well as the hard sciences)? I can't say that I would argue with that at all. I think its a good idea.

I'm personally not a fan of any of those topics, but if they are going to be a mandatory part of the curriculum than either make them sporifice and not encompass the entirety of the BSN, or make them worthwhile. I could get behind the research classes by increasing the focus on how studies are performed, and understanding the statistics behind the results. I would rather see some more pharm/patho/chem/bio though. I do understand not every nursing specialty requires a thorough understanding of these concepts. We just have waaaay too many social science courses getting in the way of understanding pharm/patho/diagnostics. A couple courses on healthcare business & law wouldn't hurt either. I can't tell you how many times I had to memorize Erickson's stages of development while I could have been doing something pertinent to my career.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion