RN-BSN SCAM

[elpnla]

Many ADN-BSN online programs tried to deceive students into believing that they can get their BSN from ADN in 13 months or less. That's a lie and false advertisement. They are not telling the whole story.

For example, University of Texas at Arlington advertises this past spring that you can get your degree from ADN to BSN in 13 months. After you enrolled and pay their high tuition rates, they want you to take from them American History I and II, Texas history, and other courses that have nothing to do with Nursing. You can take these same courses from Community Colleges in California at 1/6 their cost, but if you do they may or may not accept them for credit. For example, I have a friend who took US History from a community college. UTA does not accept them for transfer credit. Their Academic Advisors are trained to do what is good for business, and not what is good for you, the student. Be careful and do not fall for their traps! They want you to stay longer in their school, and pay for their courses that nobody wants to take, such as political science, and so forth

I heard that Excelsior College gives you 35 BSN credits for your NCLEX. They don't give you the run around treatment. They are located in Albany, New York. Their tuition is a little higher, but you can graduate sooner with no hassle and stumbling blocks.

[TiffyRN, BSN, PhD]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26367[/ATTACH]

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Which Aiken study? Assume you mean the 2011 paper in Med Care based on some of your comments...

The authors simply took the template they had for a previous study on nurse to patient ratios and mortality rates and by their own admission, manipulated the data no less than 133 times supposedly without bias to make it fit the mold for the BSN study.

The authors used modelling to eliminate confounding variables. This is common/basic research practice. The study would be meaningless with uncontrolled confounders. This has nothing to do with "bias" nor does it have anything to do with maliciously manipulating the data. It is mathematical and fully reproducible. I would expect most nurses would understand this basic component of research methods 101.

The authors also admitted to excluding hospitals that didn't fit their data set.

Exclusion criteria for incomplete data. This is common research practice, again, this is all covered in 100 level courses.

They took all this manipulated data and ran a logistics regression model to see what MIGHT happen if they was a 10% increase in BSN RNS.

A logistic regression is a very basic statistical technique used worldwide as a gold standard since the 1950s. Do you disagree with the statistical principle?

The study lumped BSN, MSN and nurses with doctorates in one group and ADN and diploma nurses in another group. It was not known how many nurses in the sample were originally ADN nurses who went back to get their BSN's. BSN's who earned originally earned diplomas or ADNs likely had more experience because they would have been working as nurses before getting the BSN. So the study used flawed sampling methodology because many BSN nurses were originally ADN nurses who went back to get their BSN's. The opposite is not true- BSN's don't go back to get their ADN.

The study controlled for experience: it is one of the "manipulations" you cited above. Of course experience would play a role in the outcome. The rest of it is rather a moot point as it doesn't matter what degree a nurse started with if their outcomes were better at their current degree, that might be an even better argument for advancing nursing education.

So the study doesn't even compare the relative levels of RN education. "Also, BSN/ MSN nurses tended to work in the high tech/ teaching hospitals and to have lower ratios of nurse to patient 4:1 as compared with the ADN at 8:1." "Mortality rates increases with age. The study states that the average patient age in the hospitals with more ADNs is 61.9 years, while the average patient age in the hospitals with more BSNs is 57.3 years." The study wasn't designed to test real conditions. The study was designed to create hypothetical situations and comment on the validity of said models based on highly modified and incomplete data.

I am not sure how this makes sense. The study used only real and retrospective data. I am not sure how you get any more real than data that was taken from things that already happened! Do you think that in your "real world" patient outcomes aren't complicated by age? Or nursing staffing ratios? The authors then used modelling to predict the results if one variable was changed and the others held constant.

Unfortunately, this one fatally flawed research report has been promulgated as gospel (by those with radically pro-BSN agendas such as the AACN), and has been a very damaging piece of propaganda because it went unscrutinized and unquestioned for a number of years.

A few points here:

1. The study was peer-reviewed so your "unscrutinized" comment is simply a fairy tale.

2. The study (and many others of Aikens) are the backbone of legislation regarding nursing staffing ratios. Do you think all that should be invalidated as well?

3. It is hard to deem something "fatally flawed" when you seem to have very little understanding of basic research methods.

4. Lets be honest, you don't like the study because you have chosen previously to not agree with the results.

5. The study has some significant flaws: you haven't listed any legitimate ones.

[avengingspirit1]

Your comments mean nothing to me. I have begun to contact local and national news outlets and am putting it on Facebook. I spoke to a nurse with media experience who left bedside nursing because of this nonsense and the people promulgate it who said they willing to help me. The Aiken study which was the catalyst for the recent BSN push was rushed and slapped together from a previous study. It didn't test real nurses in real hospitals and by the authors' own admission it is only a theory.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

Also in the study:

And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

They made sure to bury this in the body of the study and was not included in the abstracts; probably hoping no one would notice. And who peer reviewed this "study"; like minded people with an agenda. Or those with similar radical pro-BSN agendas. JAMA has lost all credibility when it published an article by Barrack Obama Obama touting Obamacare. He was not a doctor, scientist or remotely had anything to do with any medical training. JAMA proved it puts politics above science and impartiality. What those driving the BSN push did was self-serving and unethical and caused the closure of many affordable diploma and associate's programs leaving nurses few choices but to attend high-priced four year schools. And as an RN who cares about ethics, I feel compelled to try to something about it. I'm not going to stop until this is brought to the forefront by any media or social network means!

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Your comments mean nothing to me. I have begun to contact local and national news outlets and am putting it on Facebook. I spoke to a nurse with media experience who left bedside nursing because of this nonsense and the people promulgate it who said they willing to help me.

You stated this years ago if I recall. I don't remember seeing any local or national or even blog coverage of it. You can peddle conspiracy theory all you want, good luck getting any significant media attention when you present issues ignorant to fact.

The Aiken study which was the catalyst for the recent BSN push was rushed and slapped together from a previous study. It didn't test real nurses in real hospitals and by the authors' own admission it is only a theory.

The lack of understanding of the scientific process and basic research methods is an argument for advancing nursing education. The truth of the matter here though, is that it has nothing to do with science or research and everything to do (I would be willing to wager) on your personal experience creating a belief that is not supported by data.

And as an RN who cares about ethics, I feel compelled to try to something about it. I'm not going to stop until this is brought to the forefront by any media or social network means!

Without some data to support you, or a basic understanding of research and science, its going to be a long road....uphill, against traffic, in a blizzard.

[avengingspirit1]

You stated you or anyone in your family is not affiliated in any with academia and you have no skin in the game with this subject.; yet you maintain a personal vigorous defense of this study. Each time I state facts about the study, you come running to its defense with some ludicrous spin that others should accept because you supposedly have a DNP. Let me repeat these disclaimer facts in the study you either purposely ignore or a mental block just won't allow you to accept. These two facts sum up the entire study and I know you don't want others to see them. You can tell your colleagues I have sent these facts to politicians, news personal and have put them on many other blog sites. And I will keep doing so until it is brought into the limelight by mainstream news. So whether allnursing disables my account or simply won't publish my post because they're afraid others will see it, doesn't matter to me. I believe most have seen this already anyway.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

" And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

" BSN, MSN, and nurses with doctorates were all grouped together while ADN's and diploma nurses put in another group. " This study doesn't even compare the relative levels of RN education. Let me repeat that: THIS STUDY DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THE COMPARISONS IT PURPORTS TO HAVE STUDIED. This model and, as a result, this study doesn't compare existing situations. Instead, it makes assumptions regarding potential situations compared to current situations. " (zag 06)

When they looked at failure to rescue , "failure to rescue' was defined - NOT BY EXAMINING ACTUAL CASES OF FAILURE TO RESCUE - but by establishing different ICD-9 secondary codes from admit to discharge. An assumption is made that a different code meant that a 'failure to rescue' had occurred." ! By making dubious assumptions on data sets (hospital reporting statistics) - this study conjectures how this translates to 'failure to rescue' and then makes conclusions based on what this 'failure to rescue' might mean! ALL BY ITSELF, THIS NEGATES THE ENTIRE STUDY. (Zag, 06)

Statements such as this abound in the study without any mention of how they were done.

"It was later verified that this decision did not bias the result."

"Previous empirical work demonstrated. . ."

"In fact, the study makes numerous like claims and manipulates the data in many ways but it insists that you have to trust its 'independent verification' that it didn't bias the results. Of course, that is without being provided access to said independent verification." Again I'll repeat for the reading comprehension challenged: The study did not test real nurses in real hospital situations and by the authors' own admission any conclusions were only gross estimations. (Z 06)

Now, everything else I mentioned was taken for the study itself; you know, the one whose authors admitted its conclusions were only based on implications and robust estimations. But these statements are my opinion only.

Do I believe people like Patricia Benner, Karen Ballard, Pamela Brown, Linda Aiken were more interested in bolstering their belief rather than an objective search for the truth; which is why they promulgated this study so vehemently as the Gospel truth, you bet. All are affiliated with four year nursing programs . Not a "conspiracy theory" that you like to use for all those who dare disagree with you, but just plain business; which is what education is. y Denouncing that many people and organizations do not benefit from driving nurses into four year universities, is either ignorant to real life or just a prevarication. I understand the business of higher education and I want nurses to know why this propaganda was put out there. Nothing wrong with bolstering a theory or opinion; as long as you people know it is just that. These people sold it as the Gospel truth hoping it would go unchecked forever.

And I believe the reason Aiken did not do original research, but rather cut and pasted a template from her previous study, is that part of the terms of her grant were that she had a certain period of time to produce the conclusions her supporters wanted. It would have taken years to test real nurses in real hospital situations.

Again, game on, I will do what my heart compels, you do the same and we'll see what happens.

[elkpark]

You stated you or anyone in your family is not affiliated in any with academia and you have no skin in the game with this subject.; yet you maintain a personal vigorous defense of this study. Each time I state facts about the study, you come running to its defense with some ludicrous spin that others should accept because you supposedly have a DNP. Let me repeat these disclaimer facts in the study you either purposely ignore or a mental block just won't allow you to accept. These two facts sum up the entire study and I know you don't want others to see them. You can tell your colleagues I have sent these facts to politicians, news personal and have put them on many other blog sites. And I will keep doing so until it is brought into the limelight by mainstream news. So whether allnursing disables my account or simply won't publish my post because they're afraid others will see it, doesn't matter to me. I believe most have seen this already anyway.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

" And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

" BSN, MSN, and nurses with doctorates were all grouped together while ADN's and diploma nurses put in another group. " This study doesn't even compare the relative levels of RN education. Let me repeat that: THIS STUDY DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THE COMPARISONS IT PURPORTS TO HAVE STUDIED. This model and, as a result, this study doesn't compare existing situations. Instead, it makes assumptions regarding potential situations compared to current situations. " (zag 06)

When they looked at failure to rescue , "failure to rescue' was defined - NOT BY EXAMINING ACTUAL CASES OF FAILURE TO RESCUE - but by establishing different ICD-9 secondary codes from admit to discharge. An assumption is made that a different code meant that a 'failure to rescue' had occurred." ! By making dubious assumptions on data sets (hospital reporting statistics) - this study conjectures how this translates to 'failure to rescue' and then makes conclusions based on what this 'failure to rescue' might mean! ALL BY ITSELF, THIS NEGATES THE ENTIRE STUDY. (Zag, 06)

Statements such as this abound in the study without any mention of how they were done.

"It was later verified that this decision did not bias the result."

"Previous empirical work demonstrated. . ."

"In fact, the study makes numerous like claims and manipulates the data in many ways but it insists that you have to trust its 'independent verification' that it didn't bias the results. Of course, that is without being provided access to said independent verification." Again I'll repeat for the reading comprehension challenged: The study did not test real nurses in real hospital situations and by the authors' own admission any conclusions were only gross estimations. (Z 06)

Now, everything else I mentioned was taken for the study itself; you know, the one whose authors admitted its conclusions were only based on implications and robust estimations. But these statements are my opinion only.

Do I believe people like Patricia Benner, Karen Ballard, Pamela Brown, Linda Aiken were more interested in bolstering their belief rather than an objective search for the truth; which is why they promulgated this study so vehemently as the Gospel truth, you bet. All are affiliated with four year nursing programs . Not a "conspiracy theory" that you like to use for all those who dare disagree with you, but just plain business; which is what education is. y Denouncing that many people and organizations do not benefit from driving nurses into four year universities, is either ignorant to real life or just a prevarication. I understand the business of higher education and I want nurses to know why this propaganda was put out there. Nothing wrong with bolstering a theory or opinion; as long as you people know it is just that. These people sold it as the Gospel truth hoping it would go unchecked forever.

And I believe the reason Aiken did not do original research, but rather cut and pasted a template from her previous study, is that part of the terms of her grant were that she had a certain period of time to produce the conclusions her supporters wanted. It would have taken years to test real nurses in real hospital situations.

Again, game on, I will do what my heart compels, you do the same and we'll see what happens.

Hard to believe it's been almost two years and you're still here, touting the same ol' conspiracy theory. How's your plan to bring down Big Education and Big Nursing coming? You should have made some real progress by now.

[meanmaryjean, DNP, RN]

Hard to believe it's been almost two years and you're still here, touting the same ol' conspiracy theory. How's your plan to bring down Big Education and Big Nursing coming? You should have made some real progress by now.

Can I 'like' this more than once please?

[avengingspirit1]

We are making progress. It'll take time to eradicate the 15 years of garbage peddled by the smug posters on this site who may have so called "higher degrees" and some political clout in the nursing community but still can't get the neurons in the brain to synapse and understand these two statements that sum up the Aiken study.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

" And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

You stated you or anyone in your family is not affiliated in any with academia and you have no skin in the game with this subject.; yet you maintain a personal vigorous defense of this study.

Actually I didn't ever say that: I did say that I don't work at the RN level and I have no connection to undergraduate nursing academia. My defense is not a personal one. I am not defending the study per se either. I do defend science and the scientific process, as all nurses should.

Each time I state facts about the study, you come running to its defense with some ludicrous spin that others should accept because you supposedly have a DNP.

Actually, all I have done it point out places where there is a failure to understand research and/or the scientific process.

Let me repeat these disclaimer facts in the study you either purposely ignore or a mental block just won't allow you to accept. These two facts sum up the entire study and I know you don't want others to see them. You can tell your colleagues I have sent these facts to politicians, news personal and have put them on many other blog sites. And I will keep doing so until it is brought into the limelight by mainstream news. So whether allnursing disables my account or simply won't publish my post because they're afraid others will see it, doesn't matter to me. I believe most have seen this already anyway.

I think I can say with relative certainty, that no one is "afraid" of anything here, aside from perhaps embarrassment at lack of basic understanding and/or poverty of thought by a nurse.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

" And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

" BSN, MSN, and nurses with doctorates were all grouped together while ADN's and diploma nurses put in another group. "

You are quoting the study here? Or yourself? Because none of these statements/quotes are in the text of the 2011 Aiken study. (Educational Levels of Hospital Nurses and Surgical Patient Mortality)

I don't think you understand what "clustering" means, do you? The data demonstrated heteroscedasticity which required a Huber-White (or robust) standard error. This is good statistical technique in regression models. Here is a basic summation (Confusing Stats Terms Explained: Heteroscedasticity (Heteroskedasticity) — Stats Make Me Cry Consulting)

Again, game on, I will do what my heart compels, you do the same and we'll see what happens.

Why don't you link to some of the media coverage you have thus far, it's been several years...

And there seem to be a few references to "(zag 06)" are you trying to cite something?

[BostonFNP, APRN]

We are making progress. It'll take time to eradicate the 15 years of garbage peddled by the smug posters on this site who may have so called "higher degrees" and some political clout in the nursing community but still can't get the neurons in the brain to synapse and understand these two statements that sum up the Aiken study.

Study Disclaimer: ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.

" And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.

Name calling isn't nice! It hurts my feelings. It hurts the feelings of my "so called higher degree"!

I do find it interesting that you keep quoting yourself as if it were a quote from the published text.

[avengingspirit1]

The disclaimers are in the 2003 original study; they opted (wonder why) not to include them in the abstracts. The 2011 release was nothing more than a rehash of the 2003 release with nothing new. I knew when I wrote about this again, those in academia would come swarming in like flies to garbage. I find the whole circling the wagons quite entertaining and revealing. And yes, you all are afraid which is why you all are trying rebut me with the same nonsense. My mistake was not realizing earlier that to avoid academic fraud, the authors had to publish the disclaimers; a shame they only put them in the body of the original study.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

I knew when I wrote about this again, those in academia would come swarming in like flies to garbage.

So you acknowledge that what you wrote was garbage....