LPNs: Myths And Misconceptions (Part IV)

[TheCommuter]

Licensed practical nurses (LPNs) have made significant contributions to the nursing profession in several different countries for many years. However, a multitude of myths and misconceptions exist that threaten to tarnish their importance to healthcare.

The first article of this four-part essay lists several persistent myths regarding the role of the LPN, and the second article mentions a few more. The third essay in this collection also contains a handful of myths about LPNs. Keep reading, because more misconceptions exist.

Myth number ten: LPNs cannot see the big picture.

I recently read an article that attempted to describe the differences between LPNs and RNs by mentioning that the LPN is task-oriented, while the RN sees the bigger picture. Again, the ability to see the big picture is not an innate ability. Rather, it is something that is cultivated with the passage of time and the accrual of experience. In other words, this varies from nurse to nurse. I have met RNs who are very task-oriented and worked with LPNs who can analyze everything that is occurring with their patients to see the big picture. Of course, I have also met the stereotypical task-oriented LPN many times.

Myth number eleven: LPNs cannot touch IVs.

This privilege is totally dependent on the state in which the LPN practices nursing. Some state boards of nursing, such as the ones located in Texas and Oklahoma, will permit their LVNs/LPNs to engage in intravenous therapy and even perform skills such as the pushing of IV medications. Other state boards of nursing, such as the one in New York, are very restrictive regarding the LPN's participation in intravenous therapy.

Myth number twelve: LPNs cannot teach or be educators.

With the right mix of experience, LPNs are allowed to become instructors for nursing assistant (CNA) training programs. In addition, LPNs are permitted to secure employment as instructors in medical assisting programs at trade schools and adult education centers. In fact, I attended a state-approved medical assisting program approximately 12 years ago at a trade school that was owned and operated by an experienced LVN. She also taught the medical assisting courses and served as the director of education for the school.

The main goal of this four-part essay has been to debunk and/or challenge common misconceptions about LPNs. Please correct the next person who makes half-baked statements about LPNs. We all must share accountability for erasing the myths and misconceptions about the LPN's special role in the nursing profession.

[DoGoodThenGo]

Absolutely and with Type II diabetes becoming more common we are going to start seeing more and more patients on dialysis so price wise somethings got to give. Might as well transfer some responsibilities to the LVN than to expand the dialysis technicians role.

Economics are going to have more of an influence on the LVN/LPN role than any nursing union or public opinion. LPN's haven't been completely phased out and are dominant in certain areas like LTC and home health.

Personally I would like to see the LVN role/education to be expanded to fit the niche the transition away from ADN to BSN have left. Expand the length and content of the education required but keep the accessibility the same. Meaning have the core disciplines such as A+P integrated into the program so there isn't that 1 year prereq bottleneck before application. I feel we lose a lot of good nurses that way because the barrier to entry is so high

How long have I been saying that?

States should take a page from Canada. When the move was made to make the RN require a BSN for entry the LPNs have a two year degree and their own sphere of practice.

Take your standard LPN program and raise the bar to an associate degree. Add some good sciences and others courses to provide a firm foundation for bedside and "technical" care.

[tothepointeLVN, LVN]

It's the best solution the only thing I'm concerned about is accessibility. Integrate those science courses in. Don't make it like RN programs where you have to take 2 years to jump over hoops just to get a chance to start.

I remember when I live in NZ and was looking at studying design they had a program which was typical of certain education programs. You do the first year you got a certificate, you do the second year you got a diploma, you go the third year you got your bachelors degree. Also make home the CNA/PCT role requires a one year certificate. Qualification Overview

[DoGoodThenGo]

It's the best solution the only thing I'm concerned about is accessibility. Integrate those science courses in. Don't make it like RN programs where you have to take 2 years to jump over hoops just to get a chance to start.

I remember when I live in NZ and was looking at studying design they had a program which was typical of certain education programs. You do the first year you got a certificate, you do the second year you got a diploma, you go the third year you got your bachelors degree. Also make home the CNA/PCT role requires a one year certificate. Qualification Overview

Accessibility is all very well, but from where one is sitting if LPNs have prayer of getting back into acute care settings in any big way the bar is going to have to be raised. This would probably translate into more focus on theory and rationale along with ratching up more of the "thinking" skills as opposed to merely technical ones.

[tothepointeLVN, LVN]

Yes the bar needs to be raised but if there is the same barriers to entry for a LPN program as there are to an RN program then why would any one chose the former? It is possible to have a program that is integrated with an appropriate entry exam system.