Is it true that a BSN will be mandatory soon?

suni, BSN, RN · Nov 10, 2006

I worked hard for my BSN and spent a lot of money getting in, I do not think RN's should be grandfathered into a BSN. How does that build respect and what does it say about Professionalism in nursing? Do I think I am a better bedside nurse because I have a BSN? NO! But I do think I am better informed and aware of how health care runs, I understand the importance of EBP and statistical analysis and quanitiative and qualitative research. I was a diploma grad and went back to school 2 years ago to finish a BSN.

I am firmly against grandfathering in of other RN's, if you know it will be required, start back now and work hard to get your BSN like the rest of us.

suni, BSN, RN · Nov 10, 2006

Let me clarify my earlier post: I also believe that there are many nurses out there who are diploma grads and ADN's who are well rounded and have a understanding of the things I mentioned previously, I guess what it really takes is for the individual to strive to increase their knowledge base and professionalism no matter what letters you have after your name.

Still opposed to grandfathering but as we all know what will be will be.

mtdnk · Nov 10, 2006

A BSN is a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. There is a distinction in curriculum.

chestrockwell · Nov 10, 2006

The clinical courses are all the same. Why should someone who already spent 4 hard years earning a Bachelors have to go back for a BSN? That's absolutely ridiculous. The previously earned Bachelor's should be sufficient. In fact, if you have a prior Bachelors degree and an ADN you can go sraight into NYU's Masters program.

mtdnk · Nov 11, 2006

I think if you compare the curriculums of ADN and BSN programs you will see the difference. Just look and see, it should clarify your understanding.

pyrolady · Nov 11, 2006

They were kicking that around when I went to nursing school 15 years ago and it's still recycling . I don't think I'd panic about it....they don't have enough instructors to do the ADN and LPN programs, what makes them think they'll have enough to actually train BSN's as the entry level??? Ain't going to happen.... ( and YES, I do have a BSN). Beyond that, each level of nursing serves a different purpose. LPN and ADN are more hands on and BSN is more admn. - we need all of the fields to give proper care.

suni, BSN, RN · Nov 11, 2006

I agrtee that if you already have a BS in some field you should not need one in nursing. I was stating that if y ou are an ADN or diploma grad I do not think you should be grandfathered in to a BSN.

mtdnk · Nov 12, 2006

LPN and ADN are more hands on and BSN is more admn. - we need all of the fields to give proper care.

It is a misnomer to equate a BSN with administrative duties. I graduated from my BSN program 24 years ago, the concept for us was the same then as it is now....the BSN level education prepares one for the learning yet to come in practice and the profession. Its purpose is to provide a solid foundation to support and facilitate further education.

I agrtee that if you already have a BS in some field you should not need one in nursing

The curriculum of a BS and BSN are not the same. A BSN is not just sciences, but the science of nursing.

There will always be disagreements related to the educational debate in nursing. I realize that my personal and professional values influence my position, however, I believe that nursing profession has an obligation to set and maintain high standards. That requires a frequent evaluation of the needs and trends in nursing and health care, as well as the ability to accept and promote change in our preparation and practice.

Nursing is not what it was when I graduated 24 years ago, not even the same as those that graduated 5 years ago. We can only hope, imagine, and plan for the future of nursing....it is a great responsibility to ensure the proficiency and position of our profession for the future nurses. One day they will be learning about us, like we all learned about our foremothers....what will they be saying?

aakrn · Nov 12, 2006

I agree with some- this is not going to fix any problems perhaps create more. I am from PA and the hospital I worked in for 5 years has alot of older dipolma nurses as well as many associate degree nurses. I think we would lose alot of the "older" dipolma nurses.....the shortage is already awful!!!!! I myself would not want to go back to school anytime soon! I am just as qualified as an RN who has a BSN degree give me a break!

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Nov 12, 2006

Any change would require a consensus of all stakeholders.

In reality, there is a balance between education and experience, or, more to the point, experience is an education all its own.

Any such change would require a 'grandfather' clause. Even NY, which came the closest to passing this before it was tabled last year without a vote had a grandfather clause.

The issue isn't requiring current RNs to go back to school. That would never happen. The issue is how will a new requirement affect current RNs down the road. As more and more percentages of new RNs hold BSNs, how does that affect the respect owed to those that hold the legacy of nursing?

As such, a 'grandfather' is not enough to assuage the concerns of current stakeholders. There must also be a guarantee that those stakeholders do not suffer a diminished respect or role as the new requirements take hold.

Given the rhetoric surrounding BSN entry, that is far from assured. And THAT is why a 'grandfather' is not the assurance to those already in the profession that those that wish for BSN entry would like it to be.

The concept is a 'no-brainer' NOW, when 60% of all RNs do not hold BSN. How about 10 yrs after a BSN-entry, when that number falls to 40%? 15 yrs when that number falls to 30%? 20 yrs when that number falls to 15%?

If you are interested in a consensus, you have to not only address the concept of 'grandfathering' at the initiation of such a change, but the concept going forward, as well. The results of that change will serve to make non-BSN RNs the minority over time. How will this issue be perceived THEN, when those that are being asked to give up their majority role become more and more a minority, with every passing year?

Will there come a point later, when those tried and true RNs will be forced to undergo a role change in order to 'close the deal' of BSN standard? With every passing year after a BSN entry is passed, those stakeholders that do NOT hold a BSN will not just become an ever increasing minority, they will also happen to be nursing's most experienced nurses.

Any change in standard also MUST embrace the total concept of RN, and not the 'differentiations' that exist now, such as the concept that only BSNs should be in management. That is such an arbitrary standard, in any case. True, BSN grads might get more training in that regard, but those that vie for management positions normally have years of experience that more than make up the difference. This is an essential concept to moving forward. IF an ever increasing number of BSNs serves to further 'differentiate' the practice of ADNs and diplomas going forward, then no assurance of 'grandfathering' is enough to convince those practicing now that their roles will not be endangered as time goes by.

It was a mistake for TPTB to advocate a differentiation between RNs. It's a throwback to a time when the ANA advocated two distinct roles for ADN/BSN. Time has not kept up with that - all 3 degree paths now establish the same general designation. Indeed, the concept has moved past that: most that advocate BSN entry no longer envision two distinct roles for RNs, but a move for ALL RNs to a BSN standard. As such, 'inter-differentiation' between RNs is a passe concept. More important, while it is a concept that was essential to a move to two distinct roles, it is a concept that holds back a single RN BSN entry. Why? Because it serves to remind current stakeholders why a 'grandfather' is not an adequate safety net to serve against such a change.

If you want to move to a BSN-standard, you must convince current RNs that this move will not only not affect them at the START of such a change, but that it will not affect them throughout their careers.

~faith,

Timothy.

chestrockwell · Nov 13, 2006

I think if you compare the curriculums of ADN and BSN programs you will see the difference. Just look and see, it should clarify your understanding.

At my school, the only actual nursing courses that differentiate the ADN nursing curriculem from the BSN are:

NRS 310 Interpersonal Dynamics for Professional Nurses 3 credits

NRS 320 Health Assessment and Physical Examinations 3 credits

NRS 321 Introduction to Research in Nursing 3 credits

NRS 410 Community Health Nursing 5 credits

NRS 411 Leadership in the Management of Patient Care 5 credits

NRS 421 Critical Care Nursing 5 credits

NRS 423 Issues in Health Care and Professional Nursing 3 credits

The rest are the standard college courses ie. sociology, history etc. Are you suggesting that someone with a previous bachelor's degree with years of real world work experience should need to go back to school to take classes in "interpersonal dynamics", "leadership", and "issues in health care"? And as I said in my previous post, if a BSN was so necessary, why would a prestigious school like NYU admit students with an ADN and a prior bachelors degree in any other field into their masters program?

twotrees2 · Nov 17, 2006

bad, bad, bad idea.

an rn with a bsn is no more qualified to care for a patient than an rn with a diploma/adn.

i can understand the desire to "upgrade" the minimal education requirements for rns, to keep us in line with the minimum degree requirements of other health professionals.

however, other health disciplines "grandfathered in" people who were licensed with lower degrees (for example, when pharmd became the standard for pharmacists, they didn't require that all pharmacists get their doctorates, just the new pharmacists. others were allowed to continue to practice.)

and given that there isn't exactly a surplus of rns running around, requiring the bsn boarders on insane.

right now, the hospital system where i work is requiring anyone in middle-management get their bsn. upper management has to get their msn. more understandable, since bsn has more to do with management and research. however, the hospital is having a hard time getting people to comply. some just don't have the time to go back to school.

but requiring everyone to get their bsn or no longer be able to practice? not a good idea at all.

(by the way, if anyone is wondering, i do have a bsn)

dont forsee it happening - just like they have tried several times over the yrs to get rid of lpns - i just dont see it happening