excelsior accepted in ?? states

MedictoRN · Jan 10, 2006

Here's a fact. I just got back from a CPNE workshop and one of the LVNs there actually works at Kaiser and her boss can't wait for her to get licensed so she can use her as an RN. She started this program just after she got out of LVN school and had no experience when she started.

Why should EC change there program to suit one out of 50 states? It seems as though if the CA BON isn't able to see the forest through the trees then let them keep there "nursier than thou" opinion and there nursing shortage. They already have done too much in my opinion. A basic EMT worth anything with years of experience should certainly be eligible for this program. It's unfortunate that they have limited them from reaching this goal.

I will be a nurse in short order and will get my California RN license because I got in before the magic date. I probably won't ever use it to treat patients there, but I will use it to campaign against all of this foolishness.

What money? Who makes money off of this? How exactly does anybody who opposed EC in California profit from this?
They don't.
Think about it ... the state doesn't make money. Certainly you guys know that the state has to subsidize nursing schools. That means the state loses money for every student they take. And the state board loses money because they don't get the license fees from processing more licensing applications. Plus, the board has spent at least a quarter of a million on the EC lawsuit so ... they're actually losing money there as well.
The state actually loses money on this any way you look at it.
The union ... do they make money off of this? No. Even if the EC decision worsens the shortage, the union doesn't make more money because the only way they make more money is through union dues. And the only way they get more union dues is to organize more facilities and get more members paying dues each month. That means they have to go into new facilities, campaign and win more elections.
EC has nothing to do with the union's income one way or the other.
Kaiser: how do they make more money by supporting the board's decision to ban EC? They don't. They have to go out and hire more nurses which, probably costs them more money. They obviously were willing to do that because they didn't want to hire EC grads to begin with but, there is no financial benefit for Kaiser in supporting the EC ban whatsoever. If anything, it costs them money.
If we're going to talk about financial motives ... what about EC's? Why weren't they willing to even try to meet the board half way on their requirements?
Because it would be expensive and cut into their revenues.
Why have they been willing to take all of these non-experienced non-LVN's which have essentially jeopardized the value of your degree?
Because they want more money.
Why have they made only superficial adjustments, like disallowing MA's and surgical techs, instead of making real changes that would ultimately benefit the program with other state boards? Because even with the Kansas and Colorado decisions, who's going to want to enroll with EC if they have to move away from home and work out-of-state to ultimately get licensed?
But EC isn't willing to make any of those changes because they don't want to spend the money.
If we're going to look at financial motives ... let's look at EC's as well because they have much more financial motives than the California BORN does.

NURSEFORREAL · Jan 10, 2006

What money? Who makes money off of this? How exactly does anybody who opposed EC in California profit from this?
They don't.
Think about it ... the state doesn't make money. Certainly you guys know that the state has to subsidize nursing schools. That means the state loses money for every student they take. And the state board loses money because they don't get the license fees from processing more licensing applications. Plus, the board has spent at least a quarter of a million on the EC lawsuit so ... they're actually losing money there as well.
The state actually loses money on this any way you look at it.
The union ... do they make money off of this? No. Even if the EC decision worsens the shortage, the union doesn't make more money because the only way they make more money is through union dues. And the only way they get more union dues is to organize more facilities and get more members paying dues each month. That means they have to go into new facilities, campaign and win more elections.
EC has nothing to do with the union's income one way or the other.
Kaiser: how do they make more money by supporting the board's decision to ban EC? They don't. They have to go out and hire more nurses which, probably costs them more money. They obviously were willing to do that because they didn't want to hire EC grads to begin with but, there is no financial benefit for Kaiser in supporting the EC ban whatsoever. If anything, it costs them money.
If we're going to talk about financial motives ... what about EC's? Why weren't they willing to even try to meet the board half way on their requirements?
Because it would be expensive and cut into their revenues.
Why have they been willing to take all of these non-experienced non-LVN's which have essentially jeopardized the value of your degree?
Because they want more money.
Why have they made only superficial adjustments, like disallowing MA's and surgical techs, instead of making real changes that would ultimately benefit the program with other state boards? Because even with the Kansas and Colorado decisions, who's going to want to enroll with EC if they have to move away from home and work out-of-state to ultimately get licensed?
But EC isn't willing to make any of those changes because they don't want to spend the money.
If we're going to look at financial motives ... let's look at EC's as well because they have much more financial motives than the California BORN does.
Liz

Your post are sad and pointless, you just dont like ec students and ec grads, why are you even here? Please go somehere with your negativity!!!!!!!!!!

Sheri257 · Jan 10, 2006

Your post are sad and pointless, you just dont like ec students and ec grads, why are you even here? Please go somehere with your negativity!!!!!!!!!!

If it really bothers you that much, feel free to use the ignore feature. It's not like anybody has a gun to your head forcing you to read the posts.

:typing

suzanne4, RN · Jan 11, 2006

personal attacks will not be tolerated here. if you do not like a post, then report it to the moderators/administrators by clicking on the little red triangle in the lower left hand side of your screen.

you can also use the ignore feature.

MedictoRN · Jan 11, 2006

I must have missed something... Where is the personal attack?

RN34TX · Jan 11, 2006

A few questions RN34TX:
You keep referring to Kaiser and CNA's so called political motives. What were they? If it wasn't patient care then, what did they gain? How, exactly do they benefit, financially or otherwise, from EC being disallowed by the state?
And what do you suggest the laws be changed to? Do we throw out all of the requirements for all of the traditional schools and follow the EC model? Or, are the laws supposed to be changed to make a special exemption just for EC? What would the justification for such a change be?

Let me put it this way, if it really was patient care, something would have surfaced in the media by now. I'm just not buying that the patient care issues were kept sealed tight in Fort Knox, untouchable by any media, yet multiple members of the CA BNE, CNA, and Kaiser have documentation of all of this but somehow keep it sealed.

No way. A story about "diploma mill" RN's working in CA hospitals hurting or killing patients is way too juicy for someone to not have uncovered by now.

Not to mention that they have been working in CA hospitals for 30 some years before all of this started, but somehow slipped through the cracks during that entire time until the early 2000's. No way.

You pose some interesting and thought provoking questions about what in fact, should CA do if what they are doing now isn't right or working.

I won't pretend to have all of the answers here, but....

Of all the states that have placed restrictions on EC, even the one's who copycatted CA shortly after their decision, CA is literally the only state that would reject an application from an experienced RN if they enrolled after the cutoff date, and literally ask them to go back to school and go through clinical rotations. That's the part that I think is insane.

I'm sorry, but experienced RN's who can document satisfactory job performance do not need to go back to "Advanced" Med/Surg rotations.

The other states recognize this, CA does not after the cutoff date.

Sheri257 · Jan 11, 2006

Let me put it this way, if it really was patient care, something would have surfaced in the media by now. I'm just not buying that the patient care issues were kept sealed tight in Fort Knox, untouchable by any media, yet multiple members of the CA BNE, CNA, and Kaiser have documentation of all of this but somehow keep it sealed.
No way. A story about "diploma mill" RN's working in CA hospitals hurting or killing patients is way too juicy for someone to not have uncovered by now.
Not to mention that they have been working in CA hospitals for 30 some years before all of this started, but somehow slipped through the cracks during that entire time until the early 2000's. No way.
You pose some interesting and thought provoking questions about what in fact, should CA do if what they are doing now isn't right or working.
I won't pretend to have all of the answers here, but....
Of all the states that have placed restrictions on EC, even the one's who copycatted CA shortly after their decision, CA is literally the only state that would reject an application from an experienced RN if they enrolled after the cutoff date, and literally ask them to go back to school and go through clinical rotations. That's the part that I think is insane.
I'm sorry, but experienced RN's who can document satisfactory job performance do not need to go back to "Advanced" Med/Surg rotations.
The other states recognize this, CA does not after the cutoff date.

I don't know where you guys get this idea that the media picks up on everything. I worked in media for nearly 20 years ... both in newspapers and tv news ... before I decided to change careers and go to nursing school. Unless it's spoon fed to the media in a press release, or unless it involves a really famous person, the media misses a lot of stories. 60 Minutes, for example, always steals their stories from newspapers ... they never do any real reporting on their own.

And, I'm not sure why you think a hospital is going to put out a press release about any problems they have with employees, whether they are EC grads or not. Even when there were allegations that employees yanked a ventilator off a woman so Michael Jackson could supposedly use it ... the hospital refused to comment because of HIPAA, even though they were constantly slammed in the press with unproven allegations.

Seriously ... I'm sure you see things that happen in your facility all the time that might be "newsworthy." Do they actually get reported in the press? No. Most of the time, the families don't even know what's going on with their cases ... forget about the general public or reporters picking it up.

As for the rest of it, you may be right about experienced RN's. But if you start making exceptions to the education standards, you render those standards meaningless. It really seems to boil down to the question ... Do we have education standards or not? And do they apply to all schools? The answer to both questions would usually be .... yes but, I guess you guys don't think so ...

The standards aren't perfect and they probably need to be changed, but I don't think EC is the model for that. If anything, traditional schools need more clinicals, not less. With zero clinicals, I don't think EC is the solution here.

And yes, I realize that California was late to act but, from what I heard (and this could be wrong) the program was originally designed only for LVN's. As other, non-LVN's were allowed into the program over the years, this is where the problems developed. The outrageous advertisements for MA's ... which were actually advertised as diploma mills ... also caught the board's attention. What can I say ... government can be slow to act and this wouldn't be the first time, nor will it be the last. But it has more to do with bureaucracy than anything else, really.

:typing

RN34TX · Jan 11, 2006

As for the rest of it, you may be right about experienced RN's. But if you start making exceptions to the education standards, you render those standards meaningless. It really seems to boil down to the question ... Do we have education standards or not? And do they apply to all schools? The answer to both questions would usually be .... yes but, I guess you guys don't think so ...

Illinois has stood by their policy of admitting experienced EC RN's, and CO and KS incorporated the same thing. I'm not seeing any problem here.

That's not to even even mention the states that have different standards for prior LPN/LVN's. We're not MA's and nurse's aides becoming RN's. And someone in your case does need the clinicals, you're brand new to nursing altogether. I realize that students such as yourself may feel "cheated" in some sense by seeing others bypass what you have to go through, but you just don't have the background that someone like myself does.

The standards aren't perfect and they probably need to be changed, but I don't think EC is the model for that. If anything, traditional schools need more clinicals, not less. With zero clinicals, I don't think EC is the solution here.

I agree that EC is not the model for that either.

Sheri257 · Jan 11, 2006

Illinois has stood by their policy of admitting experienced EC RN's, and CO and KS incorporated the same thing. I'm not seeing any problem here.
That's not to even even mention the states that have different standards for prior LPN/LVN's. We're not MA's and nurse's aides becoming RN's. And someone in your case does need the clinicals, you're brand new to nursing altogether. I realize that students such as yourself may feel "cheated" in some sense by seeing others bypass what you have to go through, but you just don't have the background that someone like myself does.

I still think you're missing the broader point here, which goes far beyond traditional students who may feel cheated. Let's talk about your background because I think it's a good example of the broader point you may be missing here. What's good for one individual in the short run may not ultimately be good for the profession, or that same individual, in the long run.

For example ... by your own account, you were an experienced LVN who didn't need to hassle with traditional education. You wanted to continue to work during school so EC was a good thing for you. You got your RN quicker and it was a good deal ... correct?

But here's the problem with following the needs of the individual versus following the standards for the profession as a whole. Since EC doesn't follow these standards ... they've also accepted all of these non-LVN's or non-experienced LVN's that have led certain state boards and, as we've seen in recent threads, at least some employers to question the degree in one form or another.

So while discarding the standards benefitted you and other EC students initially, it's also put you in a position where the validity of your degree is questioned because those standards were discarded. Ultimately there's a price one way or the other: pay now with the hassle of traditional school standards or pay later with people questioning the degree.

Your argument is do what Illinois, Colorado and Kansas has done, which is suspend the standards as long as you practice somewhere else for awhile. But you're still suspending the standards ... and that ultimately hurts everybody in the profession. Just like EC allowing MA's, etc. hurt everybody in the program.

Once you start making exceptions and suspending the standards for this person or that group, the standards are eroded and the value of everybody's degree goes down. Everybody loses.

This is why California is right on this one and, quite frankly, the other states are wrong. Because, regardless of the arguments on what the standards should be, and the fact that the standards are inevitably flawed and always need to be improved ... every profession needs to follow standards, even if those standards don't always benefit every individual in the short run. Because ultimately, those standards do benefit the entire profession, and every individual within it, in the long run.

:clown:

mistylpn · Jan 12, 2006

I am currently enrolled in the LPN to ADN program at EC. I am still a little skeptical about it because everyone has something different to say about it. Some people say that Alabama does not recognize EC and other people say they have friends who have been through the program and are now working as RNs. So I called the ABON and asked myself and was told that it is individually based. They would not say anything else. Any input would be helpful

RN34TX · Jan 12, 2006

I am currently enrolled in the LPN to ADN program at EC. I am still a little skeptical about it because everyone has something different to say about it. Some people say that Alabama does not recognize EC and other people say they have friends who have been through the program and are now working as RNs. So I called the ABON and asked myself and was told that it is individually based. They would not say anything else. Any input would be helpful

AL is very vague and we've tried to figure them out here as well.

All I can say here is that I persoanlly have worked with two AL RN's who were EC grads. But they both were LPN/LVN's prior, so in light of the paramedic who was denied licensure, I gathered that being an LPN first made a difference in AL's decision to license them.

But I really think that it's unfair to any potential AL students for the board to say "on a case by case basis" because that is extemely vague.

They are basically saying that even two people with the same background could have different outcomes in licensure decisions depending on the board members mood on a particular day.

I hate to use CA as an example, but they at least have a clear criteria and expectation and students in that state at least know what they will be up against prior to enrollment.

AL needs a clearer criteria and standard.

RN34TX · Jan 12, 2006

I still think you're missing the broader point here, which goes far beyond traditional students who may feel cheated. Let's talk about your background because I think it's a good example of the broader point you may be missing here. What's good for one individual in the short run may not ultimately be good for the profession, or that same individual, in the long run.

Lizz,

We'll just agree to disagree here, I guess.

For me as an individual, your whole idea about my degree's value being lessened has not yet happened. The EC controversy only exists online in my life, it has never affected my professional life or any other EC grads that I've worked for or with.

As I've mentioned before, I've even tried to probe the many travelers that I work with who have worked in CA.

Most recently, one is an EC grad, the other is a traditional grad but says he is familiar with EC and has worked in CA with many EC grads, but both have been doing contracts in the SF and LA areas over the past 5-8 years and only came to TX to work because they were offered a sweet deal. (They'd have to in order to abandon the safety of staffing ratios, right?)

But just like everyone else I've asked who worked in CA in recent years, they always respond with "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Even the EC grad who had only somewhat of an idea that CA was changing it's requirements, never had any problems with employers or getting contracts.

My conclusion is that this BB does the best job of over-sensationalizing "the end of Excelsior is coming soon."