Across Ohio, and the nation, the drive is on to require a BSN to secure...or continue...employment in acute and critical care settings. While the research data shows improved outcomes in these settings with a high level of BSN staffing, there are problems with this push. Some systems are giving experienced ADN's as few as two years to secure their BSN, yet these healthcare systems are failing to meet the commitment expected of these ADN's with a commitment to these experienced ADN's in securing their BSN. Tuition reimbursement plans consistently fail to meet the cost currently incurred in returning to school.
I saw the hand-writing on the wall, and secured my BSN before it became mandated. But my employers tuition reimbursement plan at work covered, at best, half the cost of one semester. This lack financial commitment to the educational advancement of experienced ADN's leaves these nurses angry and upset..feeling hospital administration are trying to get something for nothing, perhaps in order to let attrition thin the ranks of ADN's in acute and critical care settings. This attrition will, in turn, allow healthcare systems to hire in new grad BSN's at a lower starting salary than the experienced ADN's they will be replacing.
Until nurses stop being doormats, start acting like the professionals we are, and demanding the respect and benefits that derive from that professional status...nothing will change.
Brandon, you make awesome points and you actually got me thinking a little bit differently. I have never supported "grandfathering" in the traditional sense because I have good experience and worked hard to get my BSN. I feel that grandfathering may somehow negate the extra work I took to get my BSN. This is a little smug, I know, but I'm being honest. I didn't get grandfathered in so why should anyone else? That being said, you do make a great point. Nurses with good experience should *NOT* be forced out if they don't have a BSN. I think there may be some miscommunication in what we mean by grandfathered. Do we mean that they should be exempt from getting the BSN, or should they be treated as if they have a BSN? That's a sketchy subject. Remember that not all BSN's were educated such as an entry level. There is a difference there that needs discussed. I do believe that they should be allowed to continue practicing, but the concern comes in when they leave their current role or position and look elsewhere. They will not be situated well to get another job in many places (as wrong as this is, it is the current market we are in). The thing is that the BSN courses really do give you more tools, and grandfathering nurses in will prevent them from getting those tools. Now, I know this isn't true for everyone, there are too many nurses that have specific situations in their own lives that cause difficulty. There is a solution, I do not know what it is. No, the profession is NOT compromised or embarrassed for grandfathering nurses in. I also do not see BSN as an "upgrade," but rather a new set of tools in the toolbox of nursing. Some people will disagree with this next statement, but I know only of few nurses who went on to get their BSN that would say it did not positively affect their ability to care for patients, regardless of their background. I think we need to separate the "BSN ENTRY" and the "RN-BSN" as well, because a lot of 20-30 year nurses have returned to get their BSN. If we now say it's not necessary, what was their hard work for? I understand both points, and I have conflicting feelings about them. I'm just furthering discussion here. I do believe that the Nursing Profession needs to decide now how entry will be handled, and I think that LPN's should be an AAS and RN's should be a BSN for entry moving forward.
Everything you have said is true. However, how about they let those of us who don't have a BSN worry about its effect on our employment? If they grandfathered everyone in, everyone would be RN's with the degree they currently have, and everyone from then on would need to get a BSN. Those who are currently nurses and didn't want to get a BSN would just not get one. Employers can read resumes. If the employer wants to require it then yay for them, but it would end all of this silly arguing for the future.
Every time this conversation happens, all the people who are opposed to returning to school keep harping about how unreasonable it is to expect people to take on the "great deal of debt" and "severe financial strain" involved in completing a BSN. I went back to school of my own free will and with no employer tuition assistance (or pressure to return to school), because there were things I wanted to do in my career that would require a BSN. Also, faculty at the excellent hospital-based diploma program I originally attended encouraged us from Day One to consider the diploma an entry level credential, not a terminal degree, and to plan on returning to school for a BSN (at least). I went to a program at a reputable state uni near my home, which had a BSN completion program designed for working RNs. The "full-time" curriculum consisted of one day and one evening a week. I don't recall what I paid for it, but I do recall that the cost was reasonable enough that I was able to easily pay out of pocket as I went, while continuing to work full-time. No crushing student debt, no financial hardship.
I think we need to separate the "BSN ENTRY" and the "RN-BSN" as well, because a lot of 20-30 year nurses have returned to get their BSN. If we now say it's not necessary, what was their hard work for? I understand both points, and I have conflicting feelings about them. I'm just furthering discussion here. I do believe that the Nursing Profession needs to decide now how entry will be handled, and I think that LPN's should be an AAS and RN's should be a BSN for entry moving forward.
Okay, maybe I'm really tired from working all night, but what good and what use would come from separating BSN entry from RN-BSN graduates?
I had a BA in psych when I returned to school for my ADN. I also completed a BSN but not to secure future employment. It was really a prereq for graduate school (I am waiting to learn of my acceptance). Now the system I work for is talking of all BSN staff with a target date that is about six years away. Theyre also requiring managers to obtain a masters degree. The word so far is that non BSN staff will not be termed or grandfathered, but rather would be unable to move from their current job since new hire RNs would require the BSN. In addition the system operates several schools of nursing both ADN and diploma, so they will continue to educate people and turn out nurses who are not hirable where they trained. I simply dont believe that there are that many unemployed BSN educated nurses to take the place of those that would thin the ranks from attrition. I do know that the current push is magnet related. I also recall the days when magnet status was more dependent on nursing staff and their delivery of safe and competent care, and less about how far in educational loan debt we all were.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
Brandon, you make awesome points and you actually got me thinking a little bit differently. I have never supported "grandfathering" in the traditional sense because I have good experience and worked hard to get my BSN. I feel that grandfathering may somehow negate the extra work I took to get my BSN. This is a little smug, I know, but I'm being honest. I didn't get grandfathered in so why should anyone else? That being said, you do make a great point. Nurses with good experience should *NOT* be forced out if they don't have a BSN. I think there may be some miscommunication in what we mean by grandfathered. Do we mean that they should be exempt from getting the BSN, or should they be treated as if they have a BSN? That's a sketchy subject. Remember that not all BSN's were educated such as an entry level. There is a difference there that needs discussed. I do believe that they should be allowed to continue practicing, but the concern comes in when they leave their current role or position and look elsewhere. They will not be situated well to get another job in many places (as wrong as this is, it is the current market we are in). The thing is that the BSN courses really do give you more tools, and grandfathering nurses in will prevent them from getting those tools. Now, I know this isn't true for everyone, there are too many nurses that have specific situations in their own lives that cause difficulty. There is a solution, I do not know what it is. No, the profession is NOT compromised or embarrassed for grandfathering nurses in. I also do not see BSN as an "upgrade," but rather a new set of tools in the toolbox of nursing. Some people will disagree with this next statement, but I know only of few nurses who went on to get their BSN that would say it did not positively affect their ability to care for patients, regardless of their background. I think we need to separate the "BSN ENTRY" and the "RN-BSN" as well, because a lot of 20-30 year nurses have returned to get their BSN. If we now say it's not necessary, what was their hard work for? I understand both points, and I have conflicting feelings about them. I'm just furthering discussion here. I do believe that the Nursing Profession needs to decide now how entry will be handled, and I think that LPN's should be an AAS and RN's should be a BSN for entry moving forward.
So you feel that a RN who has been practicing for 30 years at the bedside who may or may not have gone back for the BSN is under prepared to stay at the bedside? That those who went for their RN-BSN after 30 years is somehow separate and inferior to the straight new BSN grad?
I couldn't disagree more.
I'll see how you feel about that statement in 30 years when the BSN grads are told they no longer are sufficiently educated unless they get a Masters and need to be separated for the other nurses who have less experience but have the masters.
There is a little know Fair wage and labor fact....If your employer mandates you to do additional training and your job is on the line...technically they are responsible to pay at LEAST part if not ALL, of that training. Technically....It could be argued that they would have to pay you for going as well....like ACLS. This has yet to be challenged and most facilities continue to pay tuition reimbursement which kind of absolves them of responsibility and the circumvent it by highly suggesting, instead of requiring, you to further your education.I think this is one of the reasons making BSN mandatory, by law, for working employees has never come to pass becasue the hospitals would have to bear the costs. They have found a creative way around this by changing requirements on new grads and new hires as they are not responsibility for paying if you are not already working for them. The bad economy and the plethora of nurses in the market has made facilities bold and no nurse has challenged the law....which by the way would be free under fair wage and EEOC regulations and make a great class action suit. We have been lead to believe that reimbursement is a perk...but once it is mandatory it is no longer a perk....it's the law.[/quote']
Thank you Esme for such and amazing post. I didn't know it was covered under a law, good to know, and a big blow in the face of those that keep criticizing those that actually complain and don't want to be taken advantage of.
I think that characterizing this as "all of a sudden" is a little disingenuous. As subee noted "the writing on the wall" re: this issue has been pretty obvious for some time. Some people took the hint and went back to school; some people chose not to and chose to take their chances. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences.[/quote']
Your statement is ridiculous. No one has a crystal ball to predict the future. Some may have catch the subtle signs and gone for it, but if it wasn't for a bad economy and surplus if BSN graduates, hospitals wouldn't have started this BSN or else policy. It is ok if they want their new workforce personnel to have certain requirements to apply. But to force personnel that was hired under a previous policy is no more than a justification for attrition. The least they can do is grandfather in the employees that were with the company before they changed policies. Is not a matter of handouts or expectations, is professional respect, and a respect to nurses as professionals. Try doing something like this to MDs or CPAs and it wouldn't take much to have a big outrage from their organizations (AMA and AICPA). What we lack in nursing as a profession is unity and representation (the ANA and their policies are far from the nursing reality). Until we have those two things nursing as a profession will be pushed around by employers.
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.
I feel so torn about this subject. I am, myself, a second career RN. I am 43 years old and in an RN to MSN program as we speak, for which I am paying cash out of pocket but also for which I have a decent amount of tuition reimbursement from my employer. Combined with the tax breaks I will essentially incur NO debt for this degree and not be out of pocket any money. My greatest hardship is fronting the money (which I am blessed to already have available) and putting in the time (which I often struggle with and resent).
I feel at my age that bedside nursing won't be able to go on forever. I am young(ish) and healthy now, but I feel it in my legs after my third shift and I am too tired to make love to my husband when I have been working. My husband is 17 years older than I, and I know that I will continue working long after he has retired. I also know I will need a job away from the bedside, but that still pays enough to maintain our standard of living as much as possible. This means, obviously, getting a higher education and positioning myself to groom for the ladder up or up and to the side or what have you. As I look around at other open positions in my area, all state strongly that BSN is either preferred or required. Those willing to consider ADNs state openly that they will be required to have their BSN within two years of hire. This means they want the applicant, essentially, to already be enrolled in a BSN program.
Right, wrong or otherwise, the glut of nurses graduating is pushing this requirement forward. Hospitals can afford to be picky and yes, I don't doubt that mandating BSN and thus older workers refusing and dropping out only holds a benefit for the hospitals as a business entity. We all know nurses are the largest item on the bottom line of any hospital budget. I have read the research as to the benefit of BSN and up for patient outcomes and I believe in it. That being said, some of my best training where I work has come from an LPN that I work with, who is at a rather late age now starting her LPN to BSN journey, though she has been at the bedside for nearly 20 years now. If I get my MSN first, I will be promotable before her, despite her advanced experience compared to mine. This is not new. It is present in all businesses I think, not just nursing. Is it right? Not really. Does that matter in terms of reality and what is happening? Not really. All the "unfair" cries are just that. Cries into the wind. Like it or not, I don't see this changing - mostly because I don't see the rates of graduate nurses changing and I don't see the economy changing. If anything, I envision both getting a lot worse.
To NurseGuy Bri those that chose to get their BSN did so for their own reasons. We are all RN's we all passed the same boards! It is a personal choice whether to get an ADN or BSN and should remain that way. With personal choices come consequences that a person must be willing to accept. An employer can choose the BSN over the ADN if they so desire and they can choose an experienced nurse or not. To Brandon LPN it would be nice if experience trumps credentials, but that isn't always the case. Truthfully new grad BSN's cost less than experienced RN and many hospitals choose them for that reason. But eventually we will all become older, experienced and more costly. We all have to make choices in our lives about much more than education and have to prepare financially for the future!
Requiring current workers to get their BSN rather than grandfathering them in is unprecedented in any field other than nursing! Personally, I think certification such as CCRN is much more relevant to bedside nursing, at least, more economical and practical! Also when you get a certification you are required to take CEU's to maintain the credential so you remain abreast of any new developments in your field!
In the early '90s, although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. For the sake of discussion, I just checked the website of my alma mater. The BSN completion program is now offered only online, and the estimated total cost (inc. all tution, fees, and textbooks) is ~$5400. That is a fair chunk of change, but I doubt that anyone can make a reasonable case that the amount is unreasonable, excessive, or would represent a crushing financial burden.
In the early '90s, although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. For the sake of discussion, I just checked the website of my alma mater. The BSN completion program is now offered only online, and the estimated total cost (inc. all tution, fees, and textbooks) is ~$5400. That is a fair chunk of change, but I doubt that anyone can make a reasonable case that the amount is unreasonable, excessive, or would represent a crushing financial burden.
What it has to do with anything is that the cost has at least tripled since then on nearly any school, and all of this "capstone" crap that they force people to do wasn't having the effect of adding a year or more of excess onto any bachelor's program. I got a bachelor's in the late 90's and they still weren't marketing and selling the way they do now, and it didn't cost near as much. So for you to say "it isn't a big deal" really isn't relevant when you did a BSN completion in the early 90's. Oh, and my school "estimated" it would cost 12K to get an ASN at their school. It was 15K. People who live paycheck to paycheck cannot tolerate inaccurate "estimates."
Not to mention it IS a financial burden to a floor nurse who is working three 12's, not necessarily the 12's of their own choosing, to try and schedule these classes at a brick-and-mortar where your feeling is that it is still so reasonable. Oh sure, their supervisors might initially say they'll be flexible with scheduling, but when push comes to shove and they're short staffed yet again, they'll fill in the holes on the schedule however it benefits them, and if you miss class or an exam oh well. Or if you have to miss work, oh well I guess you get disciplined again. It's awfully financially burdensome to lose your job over schooling.
I feel that my point here was missed and "feelings" were made up for me by some posters. Thank you all for the good conversation, but I'm not going to try my point on this anymore. Yes, I think BSN should be the entry point. No, I did not start as a BSN. It doesn't even matter anymore, what will be, will be. It is too charged of a topic to really get into online, I was wrong to bring it up or continue it's discussion. This needs face to face discussion, because the replies I'm seeing about what people are assuming I feel are incorrect. Now, with the true tradition of so many posts within all nurses, you all may commence the "you must not have a response because you are wrong" posts. Sheesh. I'm out on this one.
.thumb.jpg.0b5bd6a5b2109816b572e0487d509464.jpg){kind=small}
redhead_NURSE98!, ADN, BSN
1,086 Posts
Everything you have said is true. However, how about they let those of us who don't have a BSN worry about its effect on our employment? If they grandfathered everyone in, everyone would be RN's with the degree they currently have, and everyone from then on would need to get a BSN. Those who are currently nurses and didn't want to get a BSN would just not get one. Employers can read resumes. If the employer wants to require it then yay for them, but it would end all of this silly arguing for the future.