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.
I think that would be a great study. I wish certifications counted as credits towards a BSN.
I'm sure they're not the only ones, but Excelsior college gives you 3-4 credits for certifications. I got 4 credits for taking the CCRN-neonatal ICU. Cheapest 4 credits ($300) I've gotten since my initial nursing school in 1992. And my employer gave me a bonus for getting the certification so essentially it was free.
I'm sure they're not the only ones, but Excelsior college gives you 3-4 credits for certifications. I got 4 credits for taking the CCRN-neonatal ICU. Cheapest 4 credits ($300) I've gotten since my initial nursing school in 1992. And my employer gave me a bonus for getting the certification so essentially it was free.
And certainly not the easiest 4. Glad they credited them.
Everything I've said has been taken straight from this fabrication you and your colleagues have been so vigorously defending for the last 13 yrs and hoping no one would see it misrepresentations. It wasn't even original with the authors simply taking data from another topic and then copying it onto the template for the BSN study. They then tried to manipulate the data to make it fit. If a student were to have handed in garbage like that, they would have been failed for the course. The backers and supporters of the study needed the predetermined conclusions published as quickly as possibly so they could start increasing enrollments at four year schools; and University of PA was given a lot money to get it done. The backers and supporters of this nonsense have been identified in print numerous times. Again, go back and tell your colleagues they're going to be taken to task and what they've done to new nursing grads over the last few years will be visited upon them tenfold. Those backing this lie are some of the most venal, prevaricating people on earth; next to those who pushed the ACA lie down the throats of the American people.
Again, go back and tell your colleagues they're going to be taken to task and what they've done to new nursing grads over the last few years will be visited upon them tenfold. Those backing this lie are some of the most venal, prevaricating people on earth; next to those who pushed the ACA lie down the throats of the American people.
And how, exactly, are you planning on "tak(ing) (them) to task"? Again, feel free to do your own studies and publish your results in peer-reviewed journals. If the studies were so badly done and so blatantly flawed, and so many people disagreed strongly with the results, wouldn't there be a significant body of research by now refuting the findings? Instead, people just keep coming out with new studies with results supporting the original findings.
And how, exactly, are you planning on "tak(ing) (them) to task"? Again, feel free to do your own studies and publish your results in peer-reviewed journals. If the studies were so badly done and so blatantly flawed, and so many people disagreed strongly with the results, wouldn't there be a significant body of research by now refuting the findings? Instead, people just keep coming out with new studies with results supporting the original findings.
Ah, someone who may be from the Northeastern PA area. On page 8 of this thread, I simply presented the facts of the study. Are you now denying the facts of the study that were in the study itself? What they did to the template of the study is a fact, not comparing the relative education of nurses is a fact, using a regression and not using real nurses in real hospital situations is a fact. Any new study either cited the original as its source or was conducted by the same people who backed and supported the predetermined conclusions of the first fabrication. In the 2013 study, Aiken cited their first study as a source in the first 4 out 6 sources! And if you're going to tell me there's no politics involved with JAMA studies, you're either naive or lying. As far as the fabrication being peer-reviewed; that's a joke in and of itself. No currently working nursing professional will want to jeopardize their jobs by refuting this study which has many angles and players that even involve state nurse's associations. But as demographics would have it, many nursing professionals are reaching retirement age. People are more willing to tell the truth when they feel they don't have anything to lose. What I have been notifying the media about are the facts I outlined on page 8. I think you know the truth about this study; which is why you and the Boston NP (who claims they have no horse in the race, but seems to know all about nursing program curriculums and has graphs and charts at the ready) keep trying to defend it. The sources for my critiques are right there in the facts or study itself. The facts you are now trying to deny.
Ah, someone who may be from the Northeastern PA area. On page 8 of this thread, I simply presented the facts of the study. Are you now denying the facts of the study that were in the study itself? What they did to the template of the study is a fact, not comparing the relative education of nurses is a fact, using a regression and not using real nurses in real hospital situations is a fact. Any new study either cited the original as its source or was conducted by the same people who backed and supported the predetermined conclusions of the first fabrication. In the 2013 study, Aiken cited their first study as a source in the first 4 out 6 sources! And if you're going to tell me there's no politics involved with JAMA studies, you're either naive or lying. As far as the fabrication being peer-reviewed; that's a joke in and of itself. No currently working nursing professional will want to jeopardize their jobs by refuting this study which has many angles and players that even involve state nurse's associations. But as demographics would have it, many nursing professionals are reaching retirement age. People are more willing to tell the truth when they feel they don't have anything to lose. What I have been notifying the media about are the facts I outlined on page 8. I think you know the truth about this study; which is why you and the Boston NP (who claims they have no horse in the race, but seems to know all about nursing program curriculums and has graphs and charts at the ready) keep trying to defend it. The sources for my critiques are right there in the facts or study itself. The facts you are now trying to deny.
You are wrong about my location, and I'm not "defending" the study or "denying" any facts. I'm just curious about your venom about it, and your repeated statements about visiting retribution on the people responsible. You sound a little unhinged on this topic, frankly. If you're so worked up about it, fine, do something meaningful about it. But repeatedly frothing at the mouth about here isn't accomplishing anything.
You are wrong about my location, and I'm not "defending" the study or "denying" any facts. I'm just curious about your venom about it, and your repeated statements about visiting retribution on the people responsible. You sound a little unhinged on this topic, frankly. If you're so worked up about it, fine, do something meaningful about it. But repeatedly frothing at the mouth about here isn't accomplishing anything.
It's just that the people involved with the study were more concerned with funding and their careers than they were for an objective search for the truth. People's lies were affected based on this lie. Nursing schools closed down as a result of this lie. Some hospitals changed hiring policies based on a lie. People were terminated based on a lie and the most important thing; patient care has suffered based on a lie. I have already started doing something about. I've started to contact media outlets. So you keep doing what you feel compelled to do and so will I. Sorry about the location, thought you from a part of PA. The venom is because those driving the BSN push are self-serving phonies. The fact that they lie for their own self-serving purposes makes me despise them as people have died in hospitals as a result of their actions.
Patient comorbidities and age explained 44.2% of the variance in 30-day mortality. After adjustment for patient comorbidities and demographic factors, and the size, teaching, and urban status of the study hospitals in a fixed-effects model, the odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of the significant hospital nursing characteristics that predict 30-day mortality were as follows: 0.81 (0.68–0.96) for higher nurse education level, 0.83 (0.73–0.96) for richer nurse skill mix, 1.26 (1.09–1.47) for higher proportion of casual or temporary positions, and 0.74 (0.60–0.91) for greater nurse-physician relationships.
Estabrooks, C. A., Midodzi, W. K., Cummings, G. G., Ricker, K. L., & Giovannetti, P. (2005). The impact of hospital nursing characteristics on 30â€day mortality. Nursing research, 54(2), 74-84.
Tourangeau, A. E., Cranley, L. A., & Jeffs, L. (2006). Impact of nursing on hospital patient mortality: a focused review and related policy implications.Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(1), 4-8.
There are also studies on the other side of the issue, if you had ever cared to look:
The study did not find any significant relationship between in-hospital mortality and three nurse staffing variables (the proportion of RNs to total nursing staff, the mean years of RN experience, and the percentage of bachelor degree prepared nurses)
Sasichay-Akkadechanunt, T., Scalzi, C. C., & Jawad, A. F. (2003). The relationship between nurse staffing and patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(9), 478-485.
I'll do what I feel I have to and you do the same. We'll let the court of public opinion decide once they have the truth. Bottom line is what's in the best interest of the people.
Patient comorbidities and age explained 44.2% of the variance in 30-day mortality. After adjustment for patient comorbidities and demographic factors, and the size, teaching, and urban status of the study hospitals in a fixed-effects model, the odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of the significant hospital nursing characteristics that predict 30-day mortality were as follows: 0.81 (0.68–0.96) for higher nurse education level, 0.83 (0.73–0.96) for richer nurse skill mix, 1.26 (1.09–1.47) for higher proportion of casual or temporary positions, and 0.74 (0.60–0.91) for greater nurse-physician relationships.
Estabrooks, C. A., Midodzi, W. K., Cummings, G. G., Ricker, K. L., & Giovannetti, P. (2005). The impact of hospital nursing characteristics on 30â€day mortality. Nursing research, 54(2), 74-84.
Tourangeau, A. E., Cranley, L. A., & Jeffs, L. (2006). Impact of nursing on hospital patient mortality: a focused review and related policy implications.Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(1), 4-8.
There are also studies on the other side of the issue, if you had ever cared to look:
The study did not find any significant relationship between in-hospital mortality and three nurse staffing variables (the proportion of RNs to total nursing staff, the mean years of RN experience, and the percentage of bachelor degree prepared nurses)
Sasichay-Akkadechanunt, T., Scalzi, C. C., & Jawad, A. F. (2003). The relationship between nurse staffing and patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(9), 478-485.
Hey, I don't know why the vast majority of your post isn't showing up Boston! Strange. . . Maybe it's a conspiracy!!
I was going to add the Tourangeau study but there it is. Another thing about that one is that it had no association with Aiken (which I don't personally have a problem with). Also, both Estabrooks and Tourangeau were done in Canadian hospitals and Canada as I recall already mandates BSN as entry level, so Canadians don't really have a vested interest in pushing that agenda.
I've been waiting for at least 3 years for avengingspirit1 to blow this whole thing up. Some of us have been around and remember.
I will go where the science points and so far, all she/he has is talk, 1st person anecdotes. Minimally, he/she could put together a qualitative study of people's experiences and even if it couldn't be published through a traditional journal, this is the digital age. Put it out there, let people look at it.
Do a quantitative study. It would be observational, not interventional, so IRB wouldn't be a huge issue. Just lots of combing through data and running some statistical programs. If this means so much to you, do it. According to you, patients are dying due to this bad information and you should feel obliged to act.
If you wrote your proposal right and presented it well, you could sell it as a cost-saving measure. With better or at least same outcomes for any education level nurses, hospitals could save a bundle by abandoning tuition reimbursement and possibly magnet status (which I'm not convinced is all it's cracked up to be).
Patient comorbidities and age explained 44.2% of the variance in 30-day mortality. After adjustment for patient comorbidities and demographic factors, and the size, teaching, and urban status of the study hospitals in a fixed-effects model, the odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of the significant hospital nursing characteristics that predict 30-day mortality were as follows: 0.81 (0.68–0.96) for higher nurse education level, 0.83 (0.73–0.96) for richer nurse skill mix, 1.26 (1.09–1.47) for higher proportion of casual or temporary positions, and 0.74 (0.60–0.91) for greater nurse-physician relationships.
Estabrooks, C. A., Midodzi, W. K., Cummings, G. G., Ricker, K. L., & Giovannetti, P. (2005). The impact of hospital nursing characteristics on 30â€day mortality. Nursing research, 54(2), 74-84.
Tourangeau, A. E., Cranley, L. A., & Jeffs, L. (2006). Impact of nursing on hospital patient mortality: a focused review and related policy implications.Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(1), 4-8.
There are also studies on the other side of the issue, if you had ever cared to look:
The study did not find any significant relationship between in-hospital mortality and three nurse staffing variables (the proportion of RNs to total nursing staff, the mean years of RN experience, and the percentage of bachelor degree prepared nurses)
Sasichay-Akkadechanunt, T., Scalzi, C. C., & Jawad, A. F. (2003). The relationship between nurse staffing and patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(9), 478-485.
No relation to the Aiken study? I counted the Aiken study as a source for this study at least four times. This study was also backed by the AACN. Go sell it to the young starry eyed students whose tuition dollars are desperately needed so these middle-aged and post middle-aged people driving the BSN push can keep their cushy jobs where they can drink their coffee, eat their doughnuts and barley move their ample cabooses off their chairs till they feel they have enough of a pension saved to retire. I believe John Ionnidis is exactly right: Most published research findings are false as those involved are more concerned with funding and their careers rather than an objective search for truth. Again: I'll do what I feel is right, you do the same.
No relation to the Aiken study? I counted the Aiken study as a source for this study at least four times.
I know this has been written here before but it's scholastically improper to not acknowledge what is considered a seminal work, regardless of one's feelings on it. I'm not by my computer to check but check the studies Boston cited that did not find significant relationships between outcomes and education level.
TiffyRN, BSN, PhD
2,316 Posts
I'm sure they're not the only ones, but Excelsior college gives you 3-4 credits for certifications. I got 4 credits for taking the CCRN-neonatal ICU. Cheapest 4 credits ($300) I've gotten since my initial nursing school in 1992. And my employer gave me a bonus for getting the certification so essentially it was free.