Shakeup of nurse education.

Published

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22416283-5005961,00.html

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/14/2032672.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22416283-12377,00.html

This last link looks suspiciously like a word for word copy of a government press release.

PRIME Minister John Howard plans to overhaul nurse education with a $170 million plan to build 25 privately operated nursing schools in hospitals.

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott says the courses will be centred on the older style hospital-based training system rather than university courses.

"One of the real problems with nurse training in recent years is too much of it has been in the classroom, not enough of it has been in hospitals," he said.

Lisa Fitzpatrick from the Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing Federation says her organisation has not been consulted about the plan.

"Nursing and the skills required for nursing has changed since the 1980s when we had hospital-based training," she said.

"The skills and expertise that is required by nurses, their assessment skills, their understanding and their work with other professions is much greater."

The trainee nurses will provide immediate relief to hospitals suffering severe staff shortages.

So what are your thoughts on this.

Levin

Howard has no idea. The reason nursing is a "profession" now, is because of university standing. Without university standing and based only apprenticeship systems, nursing would become "unprofessional", and the prestige and level of respect nurses get would drop. And then people would be dissatisfied, and it goes round and round. As it is, the UQ system of "part apprenticeship" is already creating HUGE problems in the system, so we are not even sure if UQ can continue with their system. No doubt, UQ is a heavy weight in univeristy power, so they might disregard their impact on the system and push ahead. But if they are considerate, they would reconsider the problems their system has caused.

:balloons: :idea:

One of the big issues I see here, is that all this experience will be very one dimensional. Working in one place, for 18 months would be nowhere near as good as working in 4 areas for 3 months each would be.

Working for 18 months in an Age care centre does not teach you how to work in a hospital and vice-versa.

Levin

Thank goodness there are people out there who think this is as ridiculous as I do!!

I literally laughed out loud when reading the transcript of the PM's speech announcing the program where it was stated that no nursing input was asked for regarding these reforms (the transcript was on the PM's website, but I'm having trouble finding it again...). Now this is only my interpretation of it. After one journalist asked a question he stated No, there was no nursing input. Further down, he states that the unions don't represent the views of all nurses.

Fair call, that's true, not all nurses are members of a union.

However, does he really think that consulting, or gaining the backing of the AMA, has any advantage or provides more credibility than gaining the support of the Nursing community?

Apparently so.

I am glad to see the Government taking interest in nursing education. However, it seems to be a slap-dash attempt to put something, anything together before a federal election. If they were for real, then NURSING input would have been sought. I suppose this is what really irks me about it all. If you had a genuine interest in reforming and improving the education of nurses, it would seem logical that you would seek comments, ideas, criticism, encouragement etc from the group of professionals affected by such a plan.

If they want more EEN's/EN's then the money should be pumped into the TAFE system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but TAFE seems to be doing a pretty good job with training Enrolled Nurses. If they think that a) they aren't producing enough EEN's/EN's through TAFE and/or b) the current TAFE system isn't working, then instead of spending a fortune on opening new nursing schools, would the money not be better spent on creating more TAFE positions in the first place and then, therefore, more nurses?

I acknowledge that the Government is trying to address the problem of the nursing shortage. And its about time. However, I just think a little more thought and consultation would have created a better outcome for nursing students (and the profession of nursing as a whole) in Australia.

If you would like a nurses opinion, feel free to contact me Mr. Howard, you can PM me through the allnurses board ;)

Parko

ps- I will try and find the transcript of Howard and Abbot's speech, can't seem to remember where I found it...

Ah, found it. Follow the link to the transcript of the PM's speech, and the following interview with both John Howard and Tony Abbot after the announcement.

An interesting read

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2007/Speech24559.cfm

Parko

Specializes in Med/Surg/Ortho/HH/Radiology-Now Retired.

Well, I was hospital trained.

I and my colleagues were considered "Professional's".

We were/are excellent nurses.

The introduction of nursing training as a tertiary qualification was met with considerable resistance by many nurses, administrators, politicians, educators.

To those of us who have been around awhile, this proposal is both welcomed and makes some sense.

I respect the right of others opinions on this.

Please respect mine and don't bother me with arguments, ok? :)

Grace I am not, nor do I think others here are, dissing hospital trained nurses.

Even if I believed hospital training was the way to go for the future, (which I don't think it is). I would still oppose this governments plan.

This topic isn't supposed to be people chanting on each side of a street.

"Uni nurses jump like frogs in and out of the water."

"Hossy nurses jump like frogs in and out of the water."

The topic is primarily about this particular plan. and the future of nursing education in a more general sense.

You say you support the idea of hospital training.

But do you support this governments idea of how to do that?

Doesn't the fact that the government has been changing the plan wholesale every couple of hours make you question wether it is well thought out? I mean RN's at first, then EN's the 3 years to 18 months, now it's 12 months. To me that isn't fine tuning, it's drive-by policy making.

Most people I have talked to, think that it could best be addressed by a hybrid model, for example, for EEN's do 2 years, then a mandatory (paid)grad year with at least 2 areas of work and for RN's 3 years and a paid grad year.

Does anyone else here think that such a model would be an improvement over the current training model for EN's.

Regards,

Levin

Specializes in Jack of all trades, and still learning.
Well, I was hospital trained.

I and my colleagues were considered "Professional's".

We were/are excellent nurses.

The introduction of nursing training as a tertiary qualification was met with considerable resistance by many nurses, administrators, politicians, educators.

To those of us who have been around awhile, this proposal is both welcomed and makes some sense.

I respect the right of others opinions on this.

Please respect mine and don't bother me with arguments, ok? :)

Hi Grace. I was a hospital trained EN (why did I have to hand in that qualification - I worked hard for it!). I am a university trained RN. I'm lucky to see the best of both worlds.

What I object to is the govt trying to prop up the system with cheap labour. Nurses have managed to improve the skillmix so that there are more experienced staff on the wards.

Its the same as having "too many grads". Why doesn't the hospital employ more grads to work on the floor to fill in the nursing shortage instead of returning to hospital based training? Because it is unsafe.

I think by filling those positions with students means that the govt can put the senior nurse, such as yourself, in an equally 'scary' situation, but they do not have to pay the price of a grad RN, but rather a student EN. Will they actually put more student ENs on the floor than they would have done with grad RNs?

On topic, It sounds wrong to me.. but my very first thought was that "that'll be right, they will bring this in just when I am finished my $$$ degree!!" :trout:

As it is, the UQ system of "part apprenticeship" is already creating HUGE problems in the system, so we are not even sure if UQ can continue with their system. No doubt, UQ is a heavy weight in univeristy power, so they might disregard their impact on the system and push ahead. But if they are considerate, they would reconsider the problems their system has caused.

:balloons: :idea:

I will be off topic here, but I am very curious as to the above statement, veritas... only because from what I have heard through RN's and students that have attended, UQ is THE Best and highest regarded Uni to obtain a nursing degree from.

In New Zealand it costs about 20.000 to train. I think the time has come that nurses should be paid. I have been out of nursing for over five years. If I want to return I need to complete a Competency Assessment course which I heartily agree with. However this course means about twelve weeks without any pay. There is a six week clinical component to this course. IN other words you would be an xtra pair of hands but no remuneration. I am wondering what other nurse in NZ think of this. It is impossible to do this course unless one has financial support.

[quote=veritas;. As it is, the UQ system of "part apprenticeship" is already creating HUGE problems in the system, so we are not even sure if UQ can continue with their system. No doubt, UQ is a heavy weight in univeristy power, so they might disregard their impact on the system and push ahead. But if they are considerate, they would reconsider the problems their system has caused.

:balloons: :idea:

Hi all,

Veritas I would love some clarification on the above statement. I am one of the old hospital trained nurses, who is just starting to do some work with uni students as a facilitator. I have only worked with one uni so far, have had nothing to do with UofQld yet. But you have my curiosity piqued. What problems are they causing?

I think its a wonderful idea. I had University training and I wasnt satisfied with it. Some nurse educators didnt know how to teach or put students down whom ended up leaving nursing school. I prefer the old system, it is a great idea and about time.:up:

On topic, It sounds wrong to me.. but my very first thought was that "that'll be right, they will bring this in just when I am finished my $$$ degree!!" :trout:

I will be off topic here, but I am very curious as to the above statement, veritas... only because from what I have heard through RN's and students that have attended, UQ is THE Best and highest regarded Uni to obtain a nursing degree from.

On what grounds are UQ students better? In what ways? I have worked with them and they are definitely in no way shape or form any better than others.

Also, bearing in mind ALL RNs need to pass the nursing council's standards. So really, NO school is better than other. They all adhere to the same standards.

If UQ is so adamant their students are better, then there will be a disparity in their value, wouldn't there? That means they should get paid more since they are better? If not, there is no incentive to be better? This is a value-driven society.

It's all rumours and hear-say. The advantage UQ has is the practical skills they get, since they spend 3/4 of the degree on wards. 1/4 is spent at uni. This would mean their knowledge base is very small compared to other students from other unis. I think this will be a problem if they want to pursue further academic papers, such as masters or phD. Without a strong knowledge-base, it's hard to keep up with advances in the profession.

+ Join the Discussion