Shakeup of nurse education.

ShaunES · Sep 14, 2007

I think it's a terrible idea and I hope it crashes and burns before it even lifts off the ground.

Honestly, 170 million dollars for 500 new places?

From an economic standpoint, that's retarded.

What will they be? RN's, EEN's? What? Will they have a different scope? What about further education? etc.

How much will it damage our image as professionals when we're not degree holders?

I hope when he loses at the election the idea is turfed.

nyapa, RN · Sep 14, 2007

1. Who will be teaching the nurses? Those who graduated from universities.

2. Will the student nurses be paid, or will they donate their time for free?

3. Will this method of training be recognised overseas?

4. Propping up our health system with not only new grads (of which I am one) but also trainee nurses is not the way to go, as it would leave the more experienced nurses in a situation of greater responsibility in a much more tenous legal environment than there was years ago. What will happen to our experienced nurses? Will they be sacked once they become too expensive to pay?

5. How can TAFE qualifications be equal to a university degree?

6. "Doctors, hospital administrators and private hospital employers will have input into the course content." Why is there no nurse consultation?

Extra experience in hospitals is good and supporting students financially is great; but not this way...

bassandtea · Sep 14, 2007

So that's about 20 place per school?

I hope to start my training next year and have been looking at all the courses available and looking at how many hours/weeks of clinical placements they have and some of them have much fewer hours/weeks than I would have thought. However I don't think changing over 20 years of university training is the answer, especially when internationally nurse training is done in universities.

From what I have been reading and researching I think a better solution is to create strong graduate programs that are a step between universities and the real world. And to open up more oportunities for students to work in a health care environment as they are studying.

And from what I have been reading the focus need to be on both education and retention. And staff retention comes from better working conditions and better pay.

Levin · Sep 14, 2007

2. Will the student nurses be paid, or will they donate their time for free?

My understanding from all the news articles I have read is they will be paid a "training wage" which will be subsidised by the government.

The phrase "Nurse for the dole" came to mind as I was reading.

From what I have been reading and researching I think a better solution is to create strong graduate programs that are a step between universities and the real world. And to open up more oportunities for students to work in a health care environment as they are studying.

HEAR! HEAR! (Thumps fist on table).

Honestly, 170 million dollars for 500 new places?
From an economic standpoint, that's retarded.

I just did the math you're right.

Even if you take the most favourable assumptions.

Favourable assumptions:

170 million over a 5 year programme.

Assume that this was the 1st government program in history to run within it's budget.

Assume that it has put out 1500 students at the end of that 5 years.

Math:

170,000,000/1500 = 1,700,000/15 = Still 113,333 per grad. :uhoh21:

Levin

joannep · Sep 14, 2007

6. "Doctors, hospital administrators and private hospital employers will have input into the course content." Why is there no nurse consultation?

Do not deceive yourself, there has never been any real nurse consultation over nurse education.

Well lets look at this;

Nurses work in hospitals, day surgeries, medical practices etc.

The nurses' wage bill is their greatest expense.

Who are the board members of these hospitals and day surgeries (could it be doctors?)

Who employs nurses (could it be doctors?)

Who does the government consult on nurse education (could it be doctors?)

The Australian Medical Association is one of the most powerful groups in Australia, and you are niave if you don't acknowledge this.

So, who decides how many nurses we need to run a hospital? You don't think nurses do surely.

When nurse training was in the hospital system, the board (doctors) decided how many nurses they need to run the hospital.

They then decided how many student nurses they needed, and recruited them (cheap labour).

They hired the nurse educators to teach the students.

Many doctors taught in the schools themselves. In fact, many of them were very involved in nurse education, making sure that nurses were taught what doctors decided what they needed to know.

So why the change now? Because the government and the AMA wants control of the nurses' wage bill, to do that they need to control nurse education and by limiting opportunities for nurses to work outside their control (God forbid that nurse practioners flourish), and by putting it back in the hospital sector they can.

There is no shortage of people who apply to do nursing, in Victoria only one applicant in three is offered a university place and 40 out of 700 applicant are offered a TAFE place. So, the shortage is in the number of University & TAFE places.

In the same way the doctor shortage is created by the government, masterminded by the AMA. There is no shortage of applicants to do medicine, just a shortage of places. Where does the governement get its information for the number of medical student places - the AMA. Why do they keep the number down? To guarantee them a higher income?

Am I reading too much into it, I don't know, what do you think?

Levin · Sep 14, 2007

Australian Broadcasting's AM interview is up (only 1.6M 56Kb modem users welcome).

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200709/20070914am04-nurses-training.mp3

Worth listening to:

Abbot would be a laugh riot if he wasn't for real.

And Lisa Fitzpatrick makes some good points in the second half.

Levin

smilenurse · Sep 15, 2007

I think this is not a great idea of Howard's, I think Howard should think about reducing the price of education for all nurses. The cost is shocking for many people who want to do nursing eg: for EEN's around $12,OOO ? and for RN's around $25,000 ? in QLD. I talked to alot of PCA's who would love to do EEN or RN courses but they all stated we could not afford it as we have famlies and homes to pay off. PCA's stated it is a pity we are not able to afford the nursing courses and we will just have to continue to work as PCA's. If the prices would of been reduces there would be lot's of interested people to do the nursing courses.

amelipet · Sep 15, 2007

Unfortunatelky I think that John Howard is ill-informed regarding nursing and nursing education. At what point do we as professionals allow others (no-nurses) to dictate what we should know and what level we should be educated at. Although it would be a novel idea to have education in the hospitals it is rather short sighted.

What is the input from the medico's. Do they honestly want nurses who can DO tasks rather than thinking, preempting and evaluating care? Additionally, we would be looking at another form of a tiered system in our profession (much like with the enrolled nurses). Would an RN from this proposed system be the same as one with a bachelors degree? I think that the public deserve to receive nursing care from professionals with a quality education rather than nurses who have similiar qualifications as tradesmen. Finally, nursing education providers need to have their programs accredited by the state's nursing boards, which is not an easy nor cheap task. Without consultation with this licencing/ accrediation boards - good luck.

Levin · Sep 16, 2007

Oh no, it gets WORSE!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22420497-662,00.html

Cliff notes:

NURSES who graduate from 25 hospital-based training schools will only be qualified to carry out limited functions.

Students will graduate as enrolled nurses qualified to do simple procedures and dispense oral medications.

That is a blatant turn-around, the governments Press release said "Tafe Qualification equivalent to university."

Shows how much government thought went into this, doesn't it.

From:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/blanket-rejection-of-pms-nursing-remedy/2007/09/14/1189276983713.html

The Government would subsidise the wages of trainee nurses and pay students a $5000 bonus for finishing the courses, which would usually take about 18 months. Mr Howard said there was a desperate shortage of nurses and the schools would provide extra training opportunities.

In other words, TAFE traineeships, which allready exist.

Note originally it was going to be 3 years for RN's, now it's 18 months and for EN's.

What a schermozzle this is turning into.

But WAIT now it's only 12 months!

From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22421035-11949,00.html

Students would receive a $2000 tax-free bonus after completing six months of the course, plus $3000 on graduating from the 12-month course.

I think this is a .25 policy as in the level of BAC needed before it makes sense.

Levin

nyapa, RN · Sep 16, 2007

Our ENs do two years training! So, these poor ppl will end up as equivalent to Cert 111 qualifications? In other words, not nurses? Or will there be a three tiered system?

But they have a bonus to complete their training? Why didn't we uni trained RNs get that as students?

bassandtea · Sep 17, 2007

Our ENs do two years training! So, these poor ppl will end up as equivalent to Cert 111 qualifications? In other words, not nurses? Or will there be a three tiered system?
But they have a bonus to complete their training? Why didn't we uni trained RNs get that as students?

All the current EN courses I've looked at through TAFE are 18 months of full time study, at least in QLD, where the outcome is a Diploma of Nursing (Pre-Enrollment).

As for the bonus I wonder if they will offer it to anybody other than those students who study through the proposed hospital based training?