MurseMikeD

Wrong. Women didn't begin entering professional nursing in large numbers until just over 200 years ago, and it took Florence Nightengale necessarily disenfranchising men in nursing for that to happen. Men have been nursing since before the time of Christ. Schools just do a lousy job of teaching including the history of men in nursing alongside that of women.

Congratulations! I'm not sure how to personal message on here, but I'd like to offer my contact info in case you have any questions about the program. As I mentioned prior, I just graduated from it last month.

You can get a fresh start at community college, complete your prerequisites, and transfer to a 4-year for your BSN. They'll only want to see your community college transcripts for your pre-reqs.

I'm a fan of that idea... obviously.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Last name on the tag or not, if a violent patient wants at me that badly, finding me is as simple as waiting between the hospital and the employee parking lot. I'll be happy to put them back in the hospital.

It just takes a lot to get some people to the hospital. Shoot, I was a firefighter/EMT for years, now am a nurse, and just last winter I drove two hours home from Tahoe with broken ribs and a bruised kidney. To each their own.

A BSN can give you an edge in applying for jobs, and if affords you the option of continuing on to a masters degree and advanced practice.

There's plenty of "drama" to be had in nursing school if you allow it to suck you in. You just need to rise above it and not be afraid to put someone in their place. You're investing too much in this process to take that from another student.

I never had "gimme" answers like that on any of my exams. Kinda defeats the purpose.

Two words. Insubordination and write-up.

You're going to get lots of different takes on this from different people. The only person who can answer this question for you is you. We can help you break down the pros and cons of the individual variables involved in each choice (cost, wait time, etc.), but the overall choice is going to be unique to you. What do you want to do with your career? Right now things are a little tight for ADNs in some places, because jobs are scarce and all other things being equal hospitals may pick a BSN new grad over an ADN. By the time you're done that may very well not be an issue though. Since you plan on going back and getting a BSN anyways, I wouldn't worry about it. Your educational background isn't going to be the only thing they look at. When they take into account the whole picture (prior experience, interview, references) an ADN can be a stronger candidate overall than a BSN. I got my BSN first, so I'll pass on this one. When I made my nursing school decision, it was based primarily on time. With the circumstances I was facing I could complete a BSN in less time.

What matters most is how long ago the offenses were, and what you've done with your life since then. That goes for firefighting as well (I was a firefighter before becoming a nurse). It all comes down to what you can tell interviewers and background investigators about the experience and what place it has in your life. Example: "I got a DUI last year," is a a lot different from, "I got a DUI in college five years ago. I was young, and stupid, and it was a huge wake up call that made me turn my life around. Since then I've done positive things A, B, and C." As a firefighter I worked with some guys who did really dumb s*%# when they were younger (myself... probably included in that statement). What matters is what you've done since then.

Silas, I've read your other posts, please don't start. This forum isn't a place for medical students to come instigate flame wars with nurses.

Oh believe me I know. I've done most of my work California and they're the worst. EMT certification and paramedic accreditation are done at the county level, so scope of practice and protocols change every time you cross a county line! That's kinda what I was trying to say, and looking back I didn't do the best job of it. My bad, and thanks for calling me on it. You're right, it usually won't matter. Because, as your example illustrates, scope is dictated by your current role. Back when I was a student precepting in neuro ICU and someone needed to be reintubated, I couldn't very well jump in and do that myself (licensed paramedic or not) because I was acting in my role as a student, not a paramedic. I get it, really, I do. It's like that for medics in most EDs. Most everywhere I've been or know of the ER techs scope of practice will lie somewhere between what CNAs and EMTs do elsewhere, and what paramedics do elsewhere. Meaning, CNAs and EMTs will often learn a few new skills (i.e. phlebotomy, 12-lead, bed-baths and such for the EMTs) that weren't part of their original curriculum & scope in order to work within their scope as a tech, the paramedics will shed many of their skills (i.e. crics, needle decomp, etc.) to act within the more limited scope of a tech. They all end up doing the same job in the ED. Not... always... though... and that's partly why I tried to gloss over the whole scope of practice thing, brevity. Your question pleaded ignorance (I didn't see you had ED experience) so I was trying to make things a bit simpler than they really are. Point being, that there are places where a paramedic-trained ER tech has a different scope of practice than one who was trained as an EMT or a CNA. I worked in an ED where the medic techs did most of the intubations, IV starts, and 12 leads. That's what they were there for, and they did it beautifully. The CNA and EMT-trained techs could only help set up 12 leads. Same job title, their scope based in part on their respective certification and licenses. I think it's like that everywhere, because they're both unlicensed. Even with EMTs and medics in the field. They have a heck of a lot more autonomy than any acute care nurse, but it's because they're following protocols backed up by a medical director. Again, not everywhere. Sometimes the differences are much greater. I tried to gloss over the whole scope thing, because as you helped point out... that's not really the issue with ER techs and CNAs sharing a forum. Like I said, it's more that an ER tech (whatever their background) is concerned with very different tasks then a CNA on a med/surg floor or home health. I think it's different enough that they deserve there own forum, assuming there's enough interest. We're on the same page I think.

It doesn't seem to be a problem in the U.S. During the course of my BSN program I was involved with five of the women in my class, and am not happily engaged to a fellow nurse.

I'm a man, and a nurse, with... er... significant chest hair. I'd never go without a t-shirt because I think it looks unprofessional. I might as well show a little plumber's crack when I bend down to empty a foley.

Generally BSNs receive more in depth education about pathophysiology also. ADN programs tend to be heavy on technicial skills, while BSN programs afford an opportunity to include more theory and critical thinking.

It'll take just as much time to get your ADN as a BSN. You should apply to several programs, and give the private schools a chance. They often have better endowments and can offer much more in institutional scholarships and grants than a public university. I went to a private institution for my BSN, and got a lot of help from the school despite my high EFC.

Try looking at accelerated BSN programs. It'll take longer to get an ADN, and it'll probably be about as hard to get in to either. If you have the option of a BSN or MSN as your entry level, do it. You'll have more options, and be more marketable.

It's a lot like a patient saying he/she only wants female nurses to take care of them. Everywhere I've worked, we simply explain to the patient that patient assignments aren't based on race or sex.

Good question. Well, the simple answer to your question is, "CNAs and ER techs are different because not all ER techs are CNAs." Many ER techs are in fact certified EMTs, or licensed paramedics. Also consider that some hospitals will not employ CNAs as ER techs, preferring to fill those positions with either EMTs and paramedics, or only paramedics. This is significant because while in many places CNAs, EMTs, and paramedics can all be hired and trained to function as ER techs, their respective educational backgrounds and scopes of practice differ greatly. I won't delve into the differences in curriculum or scope of practice too much, because that's more about what differentiates ER techs of different backgrounds (CNA vs. EMT vs. paramedic) and less about what makes techs different from CNAs. Briefly though... some of the differences that come to mind: CNAs don't learn to work with traction splints and aren't trained in patient assessment, EMTs don't learn much if anything about assisting with ADLs, and paramedics can do everything an EMT can and a lot more. Paramedics can administer breathing treatments, insert advanced airways, and perform procedures like needle cricothyrotomy; EMTs can generally assist patients with certain medications; and CNAs cannot do any of the above. The difference is more about "point of view" in my opinion. An ER Tech, whether he/she was educated as a CNA, EMT, or Paramedic, is concerned with very different skills and tasks than a CNA employed either in a non-ED inpatient setting or an outpatient setting. I just don't see an ER tech, regardless of their training background, having a whole lot to talk about with a home health CNA or med/surg CNA. It's apples and oranges. Sorry for going on so long... hope I've clarified the matter somewhat.

I just graduated with my BSN and they made it very clear, time and again, that we are professionals and as such are held to a higher standard of conduct.

No sweat. Good luck.

So you had 40mg in 100ml. So, when you announced that the desired dosage was 8mg each hour, she was telling you that the pump would need to be set at 20ml/hr to deliver that dosage, becasue: 8mg x 100ml = 20ml 1hr 40mg 1hr Make sense? 8mg/hour and 20ml/hour are the same thing in this case, because there are 8mg in each 20ml of solution. It's just expressing the dose in different terms of mass/time and volume/time. We good?