nitenurse

Hmmm you may want to double check that; every school has a cut off otherwise there would be no point in requiring the test at all. Every school usually lets you take it three times a year, having to wait 60 or 90 days between retests. Take a few minutes and look up your school's policies; it will look something like these: Official, verifiable documentation of meeting the minimum required scores on the HESI A2 Admission Assessment Exam. (Current within the last 5 years of application deadline). All scores must be from the same exam. HESI A2 minimum scores for admission: Reading Comprehension: 75% Vocabulary: 75% Math: 75% HESI A2 TEST SCORE CRITERIA • You must take all these five sections of the HESI-A2 test: Math, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary & General Knowledge, Grammar, and Anatomy & Physiology. • Minimum required scores: (1) at least 78 on the Reading Comprehension section; and (2) at least 78 for the Cumulative score, which is the average of the above section scores. These minimums are ABSOLUTE CUTOFFS - we do NOT round up scores to meet these minimums. • The nursing department does not count any other sections and does not count the Critical Thinking test. • Section scores may be combined from two or more tests subject to the waiting period for any re-takes of individual sections described under "Re-Taking the HESI A2". • Scores must be from HESI A2 tests taken no more than 5 years ago as of the nursing application deadline; otherwise the scores are expired and you will have to re-take the sections.

if you got through anatomy & physiology I with relative ease, 2 will not be an issue, however, microbiology can be a lot. you don't have to do HESI preparation at the same time if that is what the Kaplan stuff is for; that can wait until you're done or close to end of those classes honestly.

Sure am and have been for years; I started in a level 1 trauma center ER and went from there. And I'm not following the rest of your statement. I asked questions that were and still not have been answered, however, you stated I dodged answers. . ..to what? my own questions? And the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're going with that so it may be weird how people who haver never done the job defend it with the most bizarre justifications, however, I am not one of them.

There is quite a bit missing from that broad critique. Are these new graduates? What is the population focus? Bloated with what? certifications? If a NP/AAP doesn't fit the bill as you claim, then why not just hire an MD to fill the void since clearly an NP wouldn't cut it. It sounds like a square peg in a round hole if your committee keeps trying to fill a position with no success -that should be the embarrassing part.

1. Seeing them and treating them are two different things. They see them to refer them so I don't count that as an actionable item since nothing diagnostically significant was performed. The exception would be the ER. 2. Yes, I sure do. I believe the thinking was save the actually sick people (I.e rare conditions, cancers, etc.) for the individuals with all of those years of schooling. Again, for the type of population that fits within the scope of practice for the NP, I don't see how adding more schooling and training will improve outcomes in any measurable form.

Then why bother responding? Find your previous post and copy and paste if you feel that strongly about it otherwise read and keep going. . . . Which they absolutely do, however, when you look at the data, those graduates no better than ones that went through the minimums. There are a number of similar studies in the MD space when the question was asked does it make a difference which medical school one attends.

No, I did not say that, imply that or anything close to it. I stated that minimum standards are set by nursing boards as demonstrated here: And the licensing boards determine what is easy is since it is subjective term. Anything task is easy if you know how to do it or have a natural knack for it. Take a math savant, they have natural affinity for completing what can be considered complex math with little to no effort -proper training and experience is not necessary to determine what is easy in this situation.

Each credential has its own standards, however, the a lot of the posters here are pointing finger at the schools for setting the 500 minimum clinical hour and its not the school, its the board that sets that.

Yes, I know. I just used this as example. I didn't have time to dig through the COA document to look for the specific guidance. The whole point of the mid-levels was so that the MDs can concentrate on patient care worthy of their long schooling. That does not make one better than the other, it just made sense from a financial perspective. https://www.coacrna.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guidelines-for-Counting-Clinical-Experiences-Jan-2021.pdf

Perhaps but that is any specialty in any discipline. There are hospitals and LTCs that will hire new nurse grads, put them through their 'boot camp' and send them on their way. Are they poorly educated? I don't think so just inexperienced. But this was the same thinking for MDs and we how that happened. They are in school for a decade and still have to pay through the nose for malpractice insurance. So, where is the line drawn? I was talking about NPs. .. .

Maybe but the scope of practice between the two are vastly different. Increasing the amount of hours and education defeats the purpose and point of a mid-level practitioner.

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

The average number of clinical hours for CRNAs are a bit lower (9300 sounds closer to anesthesiologist), however, they do depend on the school: https://www.nursing.arizona.edu/academics/doctor-nursing-practice-DNP/specialties/nurse-anesthesia https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/practice-aana-com-web-documents-(all)/professional-practice-manual/standards-for-nurse-anesthesia-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=e00049b1_20

Actually its not that number comes from the states' respective boards of nursing: you can more than the minimum but that would have no bearing on licensing.

I'd say so. A lot of folks are comparing MD training to NP training and those two are apples and oranges. NP only has one population focus whereas MD is the spectrum. An MD will spend 160 hours on a specific population the first year of medical school and never re-visit because they are rotating the next treatment group. The requirements (the 500 minimum hours a lot posters are complaining about) are state-specific and they are dictated by the respective boards of nursing, not the schools: