Does the existence of LPN's make being a RN more impressive?
This question has nothing to do with the competence of individual RNs or LPNs. I do not intend to offend LPNs by posing this question (isn't that what everyone says?). For what it's worth, I am a RN who used to be a LPN and I have a high regard for anyone who is good at his or her job. I realize a title has no bearing on competence.
I'm struggling to find the words to communicate my thoughts, so I apologize in advance if this doesn't make sense. What I am attempting to ask is something along the lines of: If all nurses were RN's, and the LPN role was completely eliminated, would that eventually lead to less prestige for the "RN"(prestige probably isn't the right word). I will use SNFs as an example to help clarify my question. In some skilled nursing facilities, most of the floor nurses are LPNs (I realize this is changing in some areas). When a RN works in LPN-dominated facilities as a floor nurse, they are sometimes admired (secretly or overtly) by other staff members who strive to become a LPN/RN or who have placed the title of RN on a pedestal (sorry that sentence sounds so pretentious). I have observed that RNs (the title, not the individual) seem to be more prized outside of hospital settings where LPNs are more prevalent.
An "all RN world" would likely result in the expansion of the pseudo-LPN/non-licensed roles (which is already happening to some degree). Would this be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the standing of RNs?
We all know that there is a push by professional nursing organizations to eliminate LPNs/ADNs in an effort to improve the professional image of nursing and redefine what it means to be a nurse. We are also all aware of the obstacles that make this option impractical in certain areas.
What do you think of this compromise?:
1. Entry-level RN: BSN+ only
2. Merge the existing ADN/Diploma and LPN programs to an 18 month "Practical Nursing Program"(a few PN programs are currently 18-24 months) . This option would preserve the LPN role while simultaneously combining and eliminating entry-level ADN programs. In other words, just combine LPN and ADN programs. Add or subtract six months to the existing LPN and ADN programs to transition to the new 18 month PN programs (similar to the Canadian model). Hospitals could continue to use LPNs with extended training to prevent nursing shortages in rural/underserved areas.
I regret that this option implies registered nursing collectively has low self-esteem and needs another nursing role beneath it to elevate (or preserve?) its professional standing. That being said, if there were no other nursing roles below RNs, would RNs end up at the bottom of the licensed totem pole? Or would non-licensed support staff seep into new segments of healthcare and become the new de-facto LPNs, making this a moot point?
In essence, if we are all beautiful, is anyone actually beautiful, or does the word lose its meaning? I'm sure nothing posted above is an original idea and it has probably been beat to death already. I just want to see fresh perspectives of what nurses think of this concept. I doubt any significant changes will take place in my life time, so this is more of a theoretical inquiry. I apologize if my post comes across as pretentious. Please be nice.
There are some facilities that will not and do not hire ADN's, diploma nurses or LPN's. However, there are facilities that will hire an ADN or a diploma nurse, but not an LPN. So by eliminating an ADN or diploma nurse, and make it one PN role, there will be a whole lot of nurses that will not be employed.
An ADN and dipolma nurses are RN's, which in itself is a coveted position. When they have alternate NCLEX exams for diploma nurses, ADN's and BSN's it would make more sense to hire exclusively.
In my experience, RN's of any degree/diploma have more leeway in a variety of settings than that of an LPN, unfortunetely. With that being said, to have LPN's finish out a diploma program, and until such time as the NCLEX differs, start hiring them and save the BSN's for management.
Why should BSN's be reserved for management? They have no more management skills than anyone else. I earned my BSN for patient care. There were no "management" courses in my program.
I agreeand I'm an Adn Rn. Demote all non-Bsn Rn's to Lpn's,and all Lpn's to something else. Any Lpn schools should be made into 2 yr programs. I want it set up like the Canadian system. I wouldn't mind being an Lpn. This way,we get an more educated workforce,and more respect. I've noticed when I did work in facilities,OT and Pt kind off resented nurses,and education was always brought up during those discussions.[/quote']
Well, maybe you're OK with being "demoted", but I'm not. I'm a diploma RN who passed the same NCLEX as the ADNs and BSNs. While you may be OK with it, there's is no way I would accept a lower scope of practice.
Plus, let me ask you this: what about other degrees? Is a BSN the only degree that infers education? I have a bachelors in another field as well as non-nursing post grad work. Are you saying that doesn't count as education?
And how would you manage these demotions? Simply remove the non-BSN staff and replace with new grads? Brilliant.
And if ancillary staff has an issue with your perceived lack of education, that's not because you're a ADN, that's because of how you present yourself.
I think this is something that basically goes on in nursing circles. The general public as whole doesn't really know the difference between a LPN, RN, and BSN. I didn't until I started researching the different positions years ago in my career search. Then when I came to this website I noticed there was a huge difference in the way the different positions are treated. I think that since we are all well educated on what the different jobs detail, we can talk and debate this issue. But when you are in the hospital and that nurse comes in, generally you don't ask what degree they have or unless you look really closely at their name tag you have no idea what letters are behind their name. And I don't think most people care, as long as the nurse is doing a good job.
I find all positions respectable. Yes the RN has a bigger scope of practice, but the LPN studies just as hard in their schooling and are also well versed in their role. Don't even get me started on the ADN-BSN. The only difference there is the prereqs. They take about a semester more in pointless classes than I do. I have compared the programs extensively. Please tell me how me taking World History or a music class helps me in my career goals as a nurse? It doesn't and we sit for the exact same test. So the fact that someone paid a whole lot more than me for the same title doesn't say a whole lot. Not trying to offend anyone who is a BSN, because someday I will eventually get mine to achieve my career goals, I just find it a little pointless. But in keeping up with the times and how apparently having this will mean I will be a well-rounded nurse, I will get it.
Are you specifically talking about how nurses are perceived within the medical community? The nursing community? I don't think your average person knows the difference between the desk clerk who checks them in, the MA who does a set of vitals, or the RN who does telephone triage. I mean...our doctors struggle with differentiating between RNs and UAPs on the floor and who can/can't do what. I feel like the only people who really care about titles are nurses themselves.
Wow. I can't wait to tell my Director of Nursing, who has a lowly ADN, that she is obsolete, behind the times, irrelevant, whatever, and that her 35+ years experience just don't matter, and that she is basically an LPN, not an RN. Also can't wait to say thanks to our LPN's for making us RN's seem more important. RN-HSA, as of today, RN's take the same NCLEX, regardless of ADN vs. BSN. Tons of us have degrees in other areas, in addition to the ADN or BSN. I had an ADN prior to getting the BSN, and I must say there was practically no difference in the programs. The BSN had more "fluff" classes, that had nothing to do with nursing. Same test, same job.
Wow. I can't wait to tell my Director of Nursing, who has a lowly ADN, that she is obsolete, behind the times, irrelevant, whatever, and that her 35+ years experience just don't matter, and that she is basically an LPN, not an RN. Also can't wait to say thanks to our LPN's for making us RN's seem more important. RN-HSA, as of today, RN's take the same NCLEX, regardless of ADN vs. BSN. Tons of us have degrees in other areas, in addition to the ADN or BSN. I had an ADN prior to getting the BSN, and I must say there was practically no difference in the programs. The BSN had more "fluff" classes, that had nothing to do with nursing. Same test, same job.
I understand your passion, but the theoretical question I posed actually has nothing to do with nurses currently practicing. Also, for what it's worth, I am an ADN with a degree in a related field. :)
I don't think I ever would have even considered that LPN's are some how basically just propping up RN pride in their title. Seems a little ridiculous. Not trying to be mean, just saying I don't think many people perceive the existence of those titles as some kind of competition in social hierarchy. As Davey Do said, it's about division of responsibility, and if you've ever worked in a setting with LPN's and CNA's you quickly realize that each one serves a distinct and equally respectable role in the workplace. By the logic the OP uses, couldn't you also argue the existence of RN's is to only make being a MD more impressive?
Agreed. I'm not disputing any of that. It's interesting that you use MDs as a comparison because I originally had a MD analogy thrown in my OP lol. The reason the MD analogy didn't work in my original post is because nursing and medicine are separate educational paths. I'm realizing that what I am trying to ask isn't coming across. But I also think I may just be stating the obvious in a weird round about way.
There are hierarchies in medicine and in nursing...hierarchies can actually be a good thing (maybe that's all I was saying lol). One perceived challenge with the nursing hierarchy is that RNs do not have a professional entry-level degree. With degree inflation in other fields, professional nursing organizations are worried that we are falling behind. I attempted to come up with a theoretical scenario that would allow nursing to keep its hierarchy,while having a single professional degree for RNs. LPNs would still be around (with extended education) to fill the void of ADN RNs.
We are all familiar with the fact that all RNs take the same NCLEX, but that is actually unimportant in this scenario. Professional nursing is saying "Let's get rid of everything but BSN educated RNs". I'm asking, "why can't we keep an updated version of LPNs around"?
I'm not saying that I personally believe LPNs make RNs more impressive, it was just a question to spark discussion. However, now that I have given it some thought...I actually do subscribe to the idea to some degree (yes, I contradicted myself)...and it has nothing to do with division of responsibilities or patient care. I come across a disproportionate number of people who know and/or care about the difference between ADN/RN/BSN/ etc.
I believe that "prestige" is a perception, influenced by many factors and unique to the individual. Everyone deserves respect
Absolutely. All of this boils down to perception. However, just because I show equal respect to a MD and CNA/CNT, doesn't mean I don't perceive them differently (based on my uninformed ideas about their educational background). In fact, my perception (not my respect) will likely shape how I interact with each (ie., the words I use, rate of speech, etc.) I guess the question should be, does it really matter how RNs are perceived by the medical community and the general population? Does it make us collectively self-centered to want our profession to be respected? I'm not referring to individual RNs, only the abstract "RN title". For instance, people often have respect for the title of Engineer, MD, attorney, Pharmacist, teacher, etc. I feel like I'm going off the deep end here...
I think this is something that basically goes on in nursing circles. The general public as whole doesn't really know the difference between a LPN, RN, and BSN. I didn't until I started researching the different positions years ago in my career search. Then when I came to this website I noticed there was a huge difference in the way the different positions are treated. I think that since we are all well educated on what the different jobs detail, we can talk and debate this issue. But when you are in the hospital and that nurse comes in, generally you don't ask what degree they have or unless you look really closely at their name tag you have no idea what letters are behind their name. And I don't think most people care, as long as the nurse is doing a good job.
I find all positions respectable. Yes the RN has a bigger scope of practice, but the LPN studies just as hard in their schooling and are also well versed in their role. Don't even get me started on the ADN-BSN. The only difference there is the prereqs. They take about a semester more in pointless classes than I do. I have compared the programs extensively. Please tell me how me taking World History or a music class helps me in my career goals as a nurse? It doesn't and we sit for the exact same test. So the fact that someone paid a whole lot more than me for the same title doesn't say a whole lot. Not trying to offend anyone who is a BSN, because someday I will eventually get mine to achieve my career goals, I just find it a little pointless. But in keeping up with the times and how apparently having this will mean I will be a well-rounded nurse, I will get it.
Thanks for responding. :-) I hope you achieve your professional goals.
Are you specifically talking about how nurses are perceived within the medical community? The nursing community? I don't think your average person knows the difference between the desk clerk who checks them in, the MA who does a set of vitals, or the RN who does telephone triage. I mean...our doctors struggle with differentiating between RNs and UAPs on the floor and who can/can't do what. I feel like the only people who really care about titles are nurses themselves.
That hasn't been my experience universally. In some areas, what you described is exactly what I observed. In other places, "job titles" were a big deal. Weird.
I'm talking about both, I guess...but honestly I don't know. :)
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,120 Posts
Why should BSN's be reserved for management? They have no more management skills than anyone else. I earned my BSN for patient care. There were no "management" courses in my program.