Fired all the LPN's

imaRN08 · Sep 20, 2009

i think the statute is up for it now. i paid the debt off. but back then, i should have sought legal action!!

Otessa, BSN, RN · Sep 20, 2009

This happened in 1992 at a hospital where I worked. The LPNs had an option to go back to school to be an RN in X amount of years or become CNAs or no longer be employed.

otessa

eriksoln, BSN, RN · Sep 20, 2009

I worked for a hospital that offered two years for each LPN to start working towards their RN. The deal was, they had to begin attending an LPN to RN program within 2 years, and during the duration of their schooling, they were allowed to earn RN wages (part time hours...up to 24/week) and when they finished school there would be a full time position for them.

They brought in a lot of travel nurses to fill in the gaps that they expected to be created while the LPNs went off to school and cut back their hours. I came in on the tail end of the deal, the deadline to be enrolled in a program came and went during my assignment.

A month into the assignment, it was announced that they over hired travel nurses. Two contracts were canceled and three others were cut short (including mine). I was not unhappy about it, I was not especially fond of the facility and I got to start a job in WA early.

The problem that lead to there being too many travel nurses was.............no where near as many LPNs took advantage of the program as they expected. At the time my contract was cut short (by about 5 weeks), the number being talked about was 40%. Fourty percent of the LPNs on staff satisfied the program requirements. That means 60% did not even bother enrolling in an LPN to RN program after TWO YEARS NOTICE. What upset the hospital the most was that even with tuition reimbursement that made earning the degree free, no where near enough LPNs took the opportunity to obtain an RN license. It would have been cheaper/better for them to just do what the OP's hospital did.

That for me sums up the problem. The LPN role was NEVER meant to be a career. It was created to be a stepping stone into the RN role. It was a way to beef up staffing while people continued their education. But the culture changed due to nursing shortages, and people were capable of squatting on their LPN license, taking a little less pay for a position that they preferred. This was not what the LPN role was designed for.

As evidenced by what happened with the hospital I was at, there just is no motivating some LPNs to improve their education/background. Some will balk at administration while practically being handed a degree for free. Maybe a couple months of unemployment will be the motivating factor for them.

What happened at the OP's hospital should be a warning to current LPNs. Dont squat on your LPN license. Hospitals are pushing to eliminate the position. Heck, in an economy where Associate degree RNs are running to RN 2 BSN programs to better their standing, how could it not be plainly evident that having an LPN license is not enough anymore?

Blindsided · Sep 20, 2009

I am saddened by this post. This kind of behavior on the part of management is a blow to all of us. Wherever this happened, if those LPNs are reading this thread, I am so sorry for your loss. Future luck to you all!

Moogie · Sep 20, 2009

For me, where all of the LPNs were terminated with no notice, happened in Wisconsin. This was in a hospice facility. But shortly after the elimination of all LPNs, I've heard that they asked one of the LPNs if she wanted to come back there to work pool. The RNs weren't too happy that they got dumped with more work. But the nursing homes, home health care, and clinics are always hiring LPNs in Wisconsin.

If this is indeed going to become the pattern for LPN/LVN employment, that is, these nurses will not be working in acute care hospitals but will be utilized in LTC, LTAC, home health and clinics, then perhaps practical/vocational nursing education needs to change to give more clinical experience in those areas and less---perhaps observation or shadowing only---in settings that do not and will not employ LPNs and LVNs. If hospitals don't want to hire LPNs then perhaps practical/vocational nursing students shouldn't have clinicals in the hospital setting; instead, the could hone their skills in LTAC, in which they WILL get many opportunities to learn and practice technical and time management skills. It seems to me that hospital training for a nurse who will never get the chance to work in a hospital is a waste of resources---why not do more clinicals in environments that actually DO hire LPNs and help the students learn skills they will actually USE on the job? Plus, it would be good for the potential employers because they could hire students who are familiar with their particular facilities. Sounds like a win-win solution for everyone.

BTW, I also know of a magnet facility that went to an all-RN staff. The LPNs who left were given generous severance pay with benefits; some were given early retirement. Those who stayed went were required to go back to school to become RNs; the facility was fairly generous in offering flexible hours and tuition reimbursement. :up: That is the decent way to treat employees.

Leo2 · Sep 21, 2009

I worked for a hospital that offered two years for each LPN to start working towards their RN. The deal was, they had to begin attending an LPN to RN program within 2 years, and during the duration of their schooling, they were allowed to earn RN wages (part time hours...up to 24/week) and when they finished school there would be a full time position for them.
They brought in a lot of travel nurses to fill in the gaps that they expected to be created while the LPNs went off to school and cut back their hours. I came in on the tail end of the deal, the deadline to be enrolled in a program came and went during my assignment.
A month into the assignment, it was announced that they over hired travel nurses. Two contracts were canceled and three others were cut short (including mine). I was not unhappy about it, I was not especially fond of the facility and I got to start a job in WA early.
The problem that lead to there being too many travel nurses was.............no where near as many LPNs took advantage of the program as they expected. At the time my contract was cut short (by about 5 weeks), the number being talked about was 40%. Fourty percent of the LPNs on staff satisfied the program requirements. That means 60% did not even bother enrolling in an LPN to RN program after TWO YEARS NOTICE. What upset the hospital the most was that even with tuition reimbursement that made earning the degree free, no where near enough LPNs took the opportunity to obtain an RN license. It would have been cheaper/better for them to just do what the OP's hospital did.
That for me sums up the problem. The LPN role was NEVER meant to be a career. It was created to be a stepping stone into the RN role. It was a way to beef up staffing while people continued their education. But the culture changed due to nursing shortages, and people were capable of squatting on their LPN license, taking a little less pay for a position that they preferred. This was not what the LPN role was designed for.
As evidenced by what happened with the hospital I was at, there just is no motivating some LPNs to improve their education/background. Some will balk at administration while practically being handed a degree for free. Maybe a couple months of unemployment will be the motivating factor for them.
What happened at the OP's hospital should be a warning to current LPNs. Dont squat on your LPN license. Hospitals are pushing to eliminate the position. Heck, in an economy where Associate degree RNs are running to RN 2 BSN programs to better their standing, how could it not be plainly evident that having an LPN license is not enough anymore?

You need to get off that pedastal that you put yourself on. I have been an LPN for 23 years and I earned my Lic. I am not squatting on anything! Leo2

linzz · Sep 21, 2009

Maybe this hospital is in an area where there are too many new RN's looking for work and they can pay them lower wages.

This happens in many areas, often when LPN's or sometimes RN's get to the top of the payscale, out they go. I am only speaking from a Canadian view as our hospitals are no longer allowed to run deficits which is a new change for us.

eriksoln, BSN, RN · Sep 21, 2009

You need to get off that pedastal that you put yourself on. I have been an LPN for 23 years and I earned my Lic. I am not squatting on anything! Leo2

It's a hard pill to swallow, I know. But, unless you decide to react with objectiveness instead of defensiveness, you'll be in the same place as the LPNs from OP's hospital.

No one said LPNs have not earned their license. My point is, the license is not practical (no pun intended) in the new economy. The LPN license is considered inadequate when there is now a large pool of RN trained people to hire. There are too many RNs looking for jobs for hospitals to staff with LPNs. Its even getting to the point where ADN is not enough. In order to do anything besides rehab or M/S, you need a BSN. Notice, in spite of the terrible economy, RN to BSN programs have raised their tuition. That is because ADN nurses are flocking to them in hopes of improving their standing. Diploma nurses especially are finding they have to do this. Diploma programs are closing up shop left and right because their grads dont get hired except for at the facility they studied at.

Any nursing advocate will tell you, the LPN licensure was never intended to be a career. It was a quick fix way to beef up staffing while people studied for their RN license. Due to the shortage, people "squatted" and refused to complete their education. Now, the powers that be are doing something about it. Does this practice of eliminating LPNs really surprise anyone here? Not me.

nlhnurse1982 · Sep 21, 2009

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/lebanon-daily-news/TM8K0QFCGCQERTEL6 Here is a link of the article. I worked 12's this weekend and that is why I did not post a reply till now. I do want to let you know that in this article the talk about creating an obs unit which is really a med-surg floor that was closed down and they are relocating most of the RN's to replace the LPN's that were cut. We were also told that with this cut came a max ratio of 6:1 with a cna I will have you know that today I had 7 patients with no aide assigned to me! So it looks like their plan is really working out well for us and the patients:down:. Out of these patients 3 were confused 1 became critically hypotensive, anuric and had a soaring creatnine level (went to dialysis), another needed a lift to get out of bed 1 was a r/o cva admission and 2 were on tele. I obviously had a great day...haha. I was also told we are lucky to have jobs :angthts:. Now my issue with this is that the way they handled the move was poorly executed and insensitive to nurses who were excellent! Some even were working towards their RN. It makes the rest of us feel disposable and I really have personal qualms working for this company. I do not feel that LPN's are inferior to RN's in anyway there are good and bad that work under both licenses and I don't think it is fair to discredit their ability because they are not trained to push a medication, hang blood or TPN etc.

Moogie · Sep 21, 2009

That for me sums up the problem. The LPN role was NEVER meant to be a career. It was created to be a stepping stone into the RN role. It was a way to beef up staffing while people continued their education. But the culture changed due to nursing shortages, and people were capable of squatting on their LPN license, taking a little less pay for a position that they preferred. This was not what the LPN role was designed for.

I have to respectfully disagree with that statement that practical/vocational nursing was never intended to be a career and that it was designed to be a stepping stone toward RN licensure. Certainly, while many nurses do indeed use the LPN as a stepping stone, many are content with their careers and have no desire for additional education and responsibility. Personally, I don't see anything "lacking" in terms of ambition, skills or intelligence in someone who chooses to be an LPN for his/her entire professional career. It is simply a choice---perhaps not the choice everyone would make, but thank God we are all different in our goals, skills and abilities! I don't agree that anyone who decides to remain at the LPN level is "squatting" on his/her license, any more than the individual who wants to be an RN---without pursuing an advanced degree---or progressing to medical school---is "squatting" on his/her license.

Although I feel pretty well-versed on the history of registered nursing in the United States, I must admit that I wasn't all that cognizant of the history of licensed practical/vocational nursing. I actually thought that practical/vocational nursing was a rather new development in the profession, stemming from the shortage of registered nurses in World War II. According to this site, practical/vocational nursing has about as long a history in this country as does registered nursing. Anyway, here's the site and a couple of paragraphs: http://www.lpntraining.org/the-history-of-practical-nursing.php

The history of licensed practical nursing in the United States, like much of nursing, dates back to the late 1800's. In 1892, the Young Women's Christian Association in New York City gave the first training for practical nurses. Later, Ballard School, also in New York, was the first official school for training. At the time, practical nurses were taught to care for the sick and also were taught homemaking skills. After 1900, the education and licensing of LPNs became more formalized, with standardization developed in 1917 by the National League for Nursing, which was then called the National League of Nursing Education.
There was a shortage of practical nurses during World War I. The Army School of Nursing was formed to help train more practical nurses. The Smith Hughes Act provided money for more practical nursing schools.
Between the two World Wars, many of the nurses did not continue working. Those who did during the 1920's and 1930's worked as visiting nurses or with public health agencies.
During World War II, there was again a severe nursing shortage in the United States. Practical/vocational nurses were in more demand. LPNs were being taught basic medical knowledge, but their training was focused more on the delivery of hands-on nursing care. LPNs working under the supervision of RNs made it possible for the RNs to take care of more patients.
Not only did LPNs work in clinics, health departments, industries and hospitals, but they also went on wartime "hardship tours" in Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific.
The National Association for Practical Nursing Education and Service (NAPNES) was formed in 1941, and it accredited training programs from 1945 to 1984. There were a number of different groups that evaluated the tasks and education of practical nurses, including the National Federation for Licensed Practical Nurses.
The Board of Vocational Nurse Examiners (BVNE) was created in 1951. The first licensures from this board were granted by waiver, based on experience and physician affidavits. In 1952, the first national examinations began, and no more licenses were granted by waiver. By 1952, most programs training practical nurses were in hospitals. Licensing was done on the state level. However, not every state passed licensing laws immediately. By 1955, all the states did have their own regulations for LPNs.
The BVNE created standards for training in 1961. In the 1970's and 1980's, there was continued divergence of the two nursing pathways, LPN and RN. Examinations were standardized. To obtain a license, LPNs would have to pass the NCLEX-PN in addition to completing training.

BTW, yes, health care is becoming more and more complex and maybe it is time to FINALLY follow through with a standardized entry to practice level of a baccalaureate degree for professional nursing and an associate's degree for technical nursing. Perhaps we need to discard the labels of RN and LPN and start rebuilding nursing from scratch. I remember being told when I was in my ADN program in the late 1970s that eventually ADNs would be phased out, that LPNs would require two years of education, and that all RNs would need bachelor's degrees. I got my BSN in the early 1980s and, a few years later, took a hiatus to raise my kids. Surprise, surprise---when I re-entered nursing in 2002, there were more ADN and LPN programs than there had been when I was in school. Phased out? I don't think so.

Frankly, I'd like to see an end to the fighting between RNs and LPN and a resolution regarding the appropriate educational level that should be required for entry to practice (good grief, nursing has been mulling this one over since 19-freaking-64!) I also think the only way the nursing profession is going to get any power is to stop the bickering about who's better (RNs and LPNs have important roles in health care delivery) and start respecting each other. It's bad enough that administration doesn't respect us---but how can we expect to be treated like professionals when we're sniping at each other for making different career choices?

:spbox:

eriksoln, BSN, RN · Sep 21, 2009

There was already a thread about the history of LPN nursing on the boards.

https://allnurses.com/registered-nurses-diploma/looking-history-behind-55772.html

There are numerous postings of places to get info. on how the LPN licnesure came about in there.

Yes, for the most part, the LPN license was to fill in voids for lack of RNs...............hence..........when the field is saturated with RNs.............the natural response by administration would be to...............................refer to OP's opening comment. The logic is not hard to follow. When your degree was born out of desperation to fill in gaps and those gaps no longer exist, where else is there to go? Either back to school or another field.

Moogie · Sep 21, 2009

No one said LPNs have not earned their license. My point is, the license is not practical (no pun intended) in the new economy. The LPN license is considered inadequate when there is now a large pool of RN trained people to hire. There are too many RNs looking for jobs for hospitals to staff with LPNs. Its even getting to the point where ADN is not enough. In order to do anything besides rehab or M/S, you need a BSN. Notice, in spite of the terrible economy, RN to BSN programs have raised their tuition. That is because ADN nurses are flocking to them in hopes of improving their standing. Diploma nurses especially are finding they have to do this. Diploma programs are closing up shop left and right because their grads dont get hired except for at the facility they studied at.

I don't at all dispute that in acute care, the trend is definitely going toward all-RN staffs and that baccalaureate-educated RNs have greater opportunities for employment than do ADNs. If someone interested in a career in nursing were to ask my advice, I would certainly steer him/her toward an entry level BSN program or an Accelerated BSN program if he/she had a bachelor's degree in another field. However, while right now it is indeed an employer's market, things change---often very quickly. The facility that is laying off LPNs today may find it cannot find enough qualified RNs to fill open positions. The bottom line is that there aren't enough baccalaureate programs to accommodate every student who wishes to be a nurse. No matter how much acute care facilities want to hire only BSN graduates, colleges and universities cannot pump out enough graduates to meet that need. Sure, right now all new grads are having difficulty finding jobs. But again, that will change as the economy improves---and it may change dramatically when some type of health care reform happens.

Re: tuition rates, nursing is a very expensive major, especially when one takes into account the low student: instructor ratios that are required for clinical courses. Many advanced degree nurses don't want to teach because they can earn higher salaries working in hospitals than in schools of nursing. Until nurse educator salaries increase, there will continue to be a shortage of qualified nurse educators in academic settings. And without educators, no school of nursing will be able to keep up with the demand for nursing graduates, especially those with bachelor's degrees. BTW, tuition has gone up in pretty much every institution, from the community college and technical school to private colleges to state universities. It isn't just nursing---it's every major across the board.

I do believe that it behooves the powers that be in the nursing profession to try to standardize the education necessary for entry to practice, whether that practice will be in acute care or other settings. And while the BSN will likely become the eventual standard for nurses wishing to practice in acute care (especially specialty care), there will still be a need for SOMEONE to work in clinics, LTC, LTAC/subacute and home care. Certainly, as health care becomes more technologically complex, there will be a greater need for well-educated nursing staff. But I cannot foresee any nursing home requiring ALL its nurses to be baccalaureate grads---not in the immediate future, not in the distant future.

Again, it is disingenuous for facilities to continue to allow practical/vocational nursing students to do clinicals but refuse to hire them when they graduate because they "don't hire LPNs." Then change the way practical/vocational nursing students are educated and put the clinical emphasis on settings to DO utilize nurses of their educational and skill level. Make it clear to students in these programs that they will likely not be hired to work in hospital settings---and if they aren't happy with the job opportunities at the practical/vocational level, they need to look into getting into BSN or ADN programs. What I don't like is this "bait and switch" in which schools are not being honest with their prospective students about job opportunities---I wonder how many tell prospective PN/VN students that they'll have "no problems" finding jobs in acute care.

Any nursing advocate will tell you, the LPN licensure was never intended to be a career. It was a quick fix way to beef up staffing while people studied for their RN license. Due to the shortage, people "squatted" and refused to complete their education. Now, the powers that be are doing something about it. Does this practice of eliminating LPNs really surprise anyone here? Not me.

Again, I disagree with you and, as someone with experience in nursing education (and an idealist who can't wait to return to teaching) I consider myself to be a nursing advocate. I don't think anyone has to be famous, a department head or the dean of a school of nursing to be a nursing advocate. Frankly, I think that anyone who sticks up for nursing, whether as a profession or a vocation, is a nursing advocate. And again---why does nursing sit on its collective hands and let others take power over us? Why can't WE be the "powers that be" who determine the fate of our careers?

BTW, yes, I did see the thread about nursing history and, had I been on AN when it was started, I would certainly have enjoyed participating. I enjoy learning about nursing history and was once taken aback when I was the only student in my graduate program who knew the origins of the associate degree in nursing. I have been a member of the American Association for the History of Nursing and will likely re-join when I'm back in school and can belong at a student rate.