Is it true that a BSN will be mandatory soon?

[szccdw]

An instructor of mine (I'm in another state) stated that she recently went to a national educators conference and that they were saying that within the next several years in NY it would be mandatory to have your BSN. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Linda your posts reflect that of many on these forums. But the major problem with this post is not speaking for all..

First off, women make up majority of CRNAs in the US, CRNA's have been around for since the late 1800's in which the first documented CRNA was a catholic nun. Through the 20th Centruy most of the CRNA were women, and today. Granted more men are getting into, women make up most. At the hospital I work in, we have 18 CRNA's, of those 3 are Men. The reason why CRNAs make more money isn't because men are CRNA's, its the fact that there is a shortage of Gas Dr's...

Also, regarding pay for nurses, here in the southwest, a new grad RN can make 60K/yr, one with 5 yrs experience can make 90K, I know many RN's who are making 110K/yr. The southwest has a huge nursing shortage and the pay here is excellent.

But I agree, there needs to be a SINGLE entry point into bedside nursing..

I agree with the idea of "supply and demand" equals higher salaries in certain areas. Also it is true that CRNA's are majority female....however "Approximately 44 percent of the nation's 39,000 nurse anesthetists and student nurse anesthetists are men, compared with less than 10 percent in the nursing profession as a whole." http://www.aana.com/aboutaana.aspx?ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetID=179&ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetType=4&ucNavMenu_TSMenuID=6&id=265

[psychonaut]

Having a unified entry into practice will unify us like no other way. ADNs and Diploma grads will be grandfathered in, and not made to earn a BSN.

Lindarn, RN ,BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I think we something more to justify the bsn as entry-to-practice...

Make the bsn a superior degree.

Not by simply saying it, but by an overhall of bsn education. Make the bsn graduate a superior entry-level clinician. A higher standard for clinical skills, more in-depth biomedical education, knowledge of health policy, etc.

I don't see that now. I see an equivalent adn education tacked onto some extra liberal arts courses, with a few courses in community health, leadership/management, and research utilization thrown in for good measure.

Want to make the bsn a true "4 year" nursing degree? Make it four years of nursing education. Have courses in philosophy/ethics of healthcare, history of medicine/nursing/health care, basic sciences geared towards nursing (e.g. health physics, biochemistry, human biology, pharmacology, etc.). Clinical experience from day one (or close to it); cna-type stuff during the early education, more advanced techniques in second year, and expanded clinical education for the last two years, culminating in a fourth year that is almost entirely clinical, with advanced nursing topics taught in the didactic phase to support student nurses spending >30 hours per week in a clinical setting. Throw on one or two elective rotations at the end instead of the current model of a 10-week internship/preceptorship (the whole fourth year will be a preceptorship), in things like OR, critical care, ob, community, home health, etc.

Can you imagine the new grads such a program would produce? Such a model would eliminate any doubt about the superiority of the new grad bsn.

Without a radical change in bsn education, I see no justification for mandating the bsn as entry to practice. The adn clearly produces an equivalent entry-level RN, and the bsn provides little (if any) added value.

...and linda, I think you are sooo right about so many things in these subjects, especially regarding having a unified national voice for the profession, and for more education about the "nuts-and-bolts" of how healthcare really works. Reading your posts here for several years has had a great influence on my own thinking in these matters. Thank you.

[tferdaise]

THis is the next step for the BSN degree, and there is talk about this. But until everybody buys into have a SINGLE entry point for nursing, the current BSN will stay as is.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I think we something more to justify the bsn as entry-to-practice...

Make the bsn a superior degree.

Not by simply saying it, but by an overhall of bsn education. Make the bsn graduate a superior entry-level clinician. A higher standard for clinical skills, more in-depth biomedical education, knowledge of health policy, etc.

I don't see that now. I see an equivalent adn education tacked onto some extra liberal arts courses, with a few courses in community health, leadership/management, and research utilization thrown in for good measure.

Want to make the bsn a true "4 year" nursing degree? Make it four years of nursing education. Have courses in philosophy/ethics of healthcare, history of medicine/nursing/health care, basic sciences geared towards nursing (e.g. health physics, biochemistry, human biology, pharmacology, etc.). Clinical experience from day one (or close to it); cna-type stuff during the early education, more advanced techniques in second year, and expanded clinical education for the last two years, culminating in a fourth year that is almost entirely clinical, with advanced nursing topics taught in the didactic phase to support student nurses spending >30 hours per week in a clinical setting. Throw on one or two elective rotations at the end instead of the current model of a 10-week internship/preceptorship (the whole fourth year will be a preceptorship), in things like OR, critical care, ob, community, home health, etc.

Can you imagine the new grads such a program would produce? Such a model would eliminate any doubt about the superiority of the new grad bsn.

Without a radical change in bsn education, I see no justification for mandating the bsn as entry to practice. The adn clearly produces an equivalent entry-level RN, and the bsn provides little (if any) added value.

...and linda, I think you are sooo right about so many things in these subjects, especially regarding having a unified national voice for the profession, and for more education about the "nuts-and-bolts" of how healthcare really works. Reading your posts here for several years has had a great influence on my own thinking in these matters. Thank you.

[Farmer Jane]

I agree with the above proposal of making the BSN far more challenging. I do, however, think there should be general education requirements just as with any other science degree.

[PMFB-RN, RN]

THis is the next step for the BSN degree, and there is talk about this. But until everybody buys into have a SINGLE entry point for nursing, the current BSN will stay as is.

*** I agree that there should be a single entry point for nursing. However I feel that place is at the ADN level. I very much agree with psychonaut. If what he is proposing where what a BSN grad got for an education I would change my mind and favor the BSN entry point.

He is also right that currently a BSN is just an ADN nursing education with some liberal arts, community health, research and management added. Have you looked at the course requirements for a UOP online BSN (or similar schools)? I am not knocking those who hold UOP BSNs, after all they met the current requirements, but I do not find the argument that a holder of such degrees is a superior nurse to the ADN grad compelling. I find nothing at all creditable with the argument that a BSN will result in better pay and/or respect.

I think you have the cart before the horse. Reform the BSN and that will lead to single point of entry. At least if gives you a string argument in favor of it IMO.

[tferdaise]

I guess what makes me laugh really is, people keep saying, the only difference is Liberal Arts, Community Health, Research and Management class's added to the already ADN program.

That isn't completely true, remember each state has thier own requirements for the ADN degree. Here in AZ, for the ADN, you do not need College Algabra, for the BSN degree, you do, plus stats. The level of education is different also, when you move up to the upper divison of class's the work is at a higher level then the lower division of class. So the comparison isn't there. The BSN deree is about thinking on a higher level, which most undergrad degree do. Now if you try and compare the BSN and ADN regarding skills, yes, they are the same....

*** I agree that there should be a single entry point for nursing. However I feel that place is at the ADN level. I very much agree with psychonaut. If what he is proposing where what a BSN grad got for an education I would change my mind and favor the BSN entry point.

He is also right that currently a BSN is just an ADN nursing education with some liberal arts, community health, research and management added. Have you looked at the course requirements for a UOP online BSN (or similar schools)? I am not knocking those who hold UOP BSNs, after all they met the current requirements, but I do not find the argument that a holder of such degrees is a superior nurse to the ADN grad compelling. I find nothing at all creditable with the argument that a BSN will result in better pay and/or respect.

I think you have the cart before the horse. Reform the BSN and that will lead to single point of entry. At least if gives you a string argument in favor of it IMO.

[calledtodo]

I am going for the BSN because I am going for the Nurse practitioner. It works for me.

[psychonaut]

THis is the next step for the BSN degree, and there is talk about this. But until everybody buys into have a SINGLE entry point for nursing, the current BSN will stay as is.

I see your point, and it really becomes a "chicken-or-egg" type of thing. I'm proposing that there is no way to justify mandated bsn entry-to-practice without a reformulation of the bsn curriculum. You state that the curricula cannot be changed until the bsn is mandated, and you very well may be right.

I agree with the above proposal of making the BSN far more challenging. I do, however, think there should be general education requirements just as with any other science degree.

I agree, and was hinting at that in suggesting that the gen-ed courses be geared (when feasible) towards health care, e.g. sociology with a focus on health policy, psychology of health, etc. You are completely correct in that all states have specific requirements for gen-ed/liberal arts coursework required for graduation with a bacc degree, and my redisigned bsn curriculum would have to accomodate that.

*** I agree that there should be a single entry point for nursing. However I feel that place is at the ADN level. I very much agree with psychonaut. If what he is proposing where what a BSN grad got for an education I would change my mind and favor the BSN entry point.

He is also right that currently a BSN is just an ADN nursing education with some liberal arts, community health, research and management added. Have you looked at the course requirements for a UOP online BSN (or similar schools)? I am not knocking those who hold UOP BSNs, after all they met the current requirements, but I do not find the argument that a holder of such degrees is a superior nurse to the ADN grad compelling. I find nothing at all creditable with the argument that a BSN will result in better pay and/or respect.

I think you have the cart before the horse. Reform the BSN and that will lead to single point of entry. At least if gives you a string argument in favor of it IMO.

We are in agreement. As things stand now, based solely on the entry-level nurses produced, I see no reason for the adn to not continue to be a route to entering the profession. I'm not too sure about the adn being the *sole* point of entry, although strong support for that may be a very good way to "encourage" the PTB to consider a reformulation of bsn curricula.

I guess what makes me laugh really is, people keep saying, the only difference is Liberal Arts, Community Health, Research and Management class's added to the already ADN program.

That isn't completely true, remember each state has thier own requirements for the ADN degree. Here in AZ, for the ADN, you do not need College Algabra, for the BSN degree, you do, plus stats. The level of education is different also, when you move up to the upper divison of class's the work is at a higher level then the lower division of class. So the comparison isn't there. The BSN deree is about thinking on a higher level, which most undergrad degree do. Now if you try and compare the BSN and ADN regarding skills, yes, they are the same....

I'm not so sure about much of this, but there may be some merit to what you are saying.

Regarding pre-reqs, you do have valid points. My local cc allows a lower-level math course in place of college algebra. My bsn program further required two semesters of gen chem and a stats course. I would agree that these are all courses that can be very applicable to nursing, as would the bsn-required research course. Taken together, these all form a very rudimentary science education, vital to a professional who works with concepts of biochemistry and EBP on a daily basis.

The "thinking on a higher level" concept is a bit fuzzier, and I'm not quite sure where I stand in that regard. In my bsn program, the only upper-division courses were in the nursing program. These are the very same courses that are arguably identical (or near-identical) to those offered in the adn programs. In other words, I see no evidence that the "Fundamentals" course offered at the 400-level at uni is any different in content then the equivalent course offered at a 100-level at the cc. All the required pre-reqs are lower division.

It is true that there are more liberal arts courses required for the bsn (6 credits of humanities, and poli sci 101) then for the adn (both require psy 101, soc 101, and the usual 2 semesters of english). Do those 9 credits of humanities education translate to "higher levels of thinking"? I just don't know, unlike the science pre-reqs mentioned above, where I would agree that the more science, the better.

In terms of day-to-day critical thinking, several of the adns on my unit are amongst those nurses looked to a resources, even a few who have

At this point, I am going to maintain my opinion that both the adn and bsn produce entry-level nurses with the same potential for performing their duties. Based on this criteria alone (and not including the considerations of other professions mandating bacc degrees, respect from other professionals/the public, etc) I cannot support the bsn as sole entry-to-practice.

[tferdaise]

THere is no way you can tell me that a 400 level Ethics class is the same as a 200 level ethics class? Or, a 400 level Research class is the same as a 200 level research class. The higher level of thinking if what it takes to get a A in those class's as well as papers that the profressors are looking for.

The "thinking on a higher level" concept is a bit fuzzier, and I'm not quite sure where I stand in that regard. In my bsn program, the only upper-division courses were in the nursing program. These are the very same courses that are arguably identical (or near-identical) to those offered in the adn programs. In other words, I see no evidence that the "Fundamentals" course offered at the 400-level at uni is any different in content then the equivalent course offered at a 100-level at the cc. All the required pre-reqs are lower division.

It is true that there are more liberal arts courses required for the bsn (6 credits of humanities, and poli sci 101) then for the adn (both require psy 101, soc 101, and the usual 2 semesters of english). Do those 9 credits of humanities education translate to "higher levels of thinking"? I just don't know, unlike the science pre-reqs mentioned above, where I would agree that the more science, the better.

In terms of day-to-day critical thinking, several of the adns on my unit are amongst those nurses looked to a resources, even a few who have

At this point, I am going to maintain my opinion that both the adn and bsn produce entry-level nurses with the same potential for performing their duties. Based on this criteria alone (and not including the considerations of other professions mandating bacc degrees, respect from other professionals/the public, etc) I cannot support the bsn as sole entry-to-practice.

[PMFB-RN, RN]

THere is no way you can tell me that a 400 level Ethics class is the same as a 200 level ethics class? Or, a 400 level Research class is the same as a 200 level research class. The higher level of thinking if what it takes to get a A in those class's as well as papers that the profressors are looking for.

*** My BSN program did not include an ethics class and the research class was a joke. While it was at the 300 level & online, any decent high school kid could have gotten an A in it. I spent an everage of 2 hours a week for that class including online time.

Your argument would be better if some oif these things you are talking about where even part of a BSN program. That may be in some but not others.

[dinah77, ADN]

I guess what makes me laugh really is, people keep saying, the only difference is Liberal Arts, Community Health, Research and Management class's added to the already ADN program.

That isn't completely true, remember each state has thier own requirements for the ADN degree. Here in AZ, for the ADN, you do not need College Algabra, for the BSN degree, you do, plus stats. The level of education is different also, when you move up to the upper divison of class's the work is at a higher level then the lower division of class. So the comparison isn't there. The BSN deree is about thinking on a higher level, which most undergrad degree do. Now if you try and compare the BSN and ADN regarding skills, yes, they are the same....

Sorry, guess I'll be another one to make you laugh then.

How does the BSN being superior to ADN fit for those like myself who have a BA in another area and are now attending an ADN program?

The Folks I know in BSN programs are not any more equipped for critical thinking, and in fact I would go so far as to venture that my critical thinking skills are MORE developed then theirs because I spent 4 years doing nothing but Liberal arts prior to seguing into Nursing.

And as far as nursing componenetss, I have compared notes, syllabuses with my BSN friends and I have seen nothing to suggest that their BSN nursing content is superior to mine.

[tferdaise]

Once again I had a good laugh, since you completeled a on-line BSN course and I'm currently in a ground BSN coorifice it seemd that the courses aren't even the close. I guess why I'm laughing is this, you keep saying that the BSN program didn't get your think at a higher level then your ADN. Why not tell me where and when you got your BSN degree.

*** My BSN program did not include an ethics class and the research class was a joke. While it was at the 300 level & online, any decent high school kid could have gotten an A in it. I spent an everage of 2 hours a week for that class including online time.

Your argument would be better if some oif these things you are talking about where even part of a BSN program. That may be in some but not others.