The ANA really doesn't like non-BSN Nurses

[SuesquatchRN]

When I was an LPN I was annoyed that I wasn't even included. NOW when I go to their site I see that the only nurses who can get credentialed for anything at all need a bachelor's, almost any bachelor's.

So where else can I get credentials for specialities prior to the BSN? I just don't hanve the money to do it now.

[SuesquatchRN, BSN, RN]

I don't intend to spend the time and money to get a BSN. I'm 51 years old and still raising children. I don't want to waste precious time writing meaningless 30 page careplans and writing fluff cultural diversity papers and other nonsense.

If BSN concentrated on hardcore clinically relavent material, then it would be valuable. I can further my knowledge base much better by going for a CCRN certification, or merely attending relavent seminars and reading nursing journals.

Some BSN programs are hard-core clinical. Pharm and pathophys. Some put the BS in BSN.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

But that's another debate. Tweety, I haven't clicked on anything on the ANCC that doesn't require a bachelor's. ?

Look again. Many of them, if not most require a minimum of BSN, but some such as Med-Surg, Cardiac, Physch Nurse to name a few don't. Informatics, which is your speciality I believe, does indeed require a Bachelor's Degree.

They certification I have, Med-Surg, has the folowing requirements:

Eligibility Criteria

All requirements must be completed prior to application for the examination.

" Hold a current, active RN license in a state or territory of the United States or the

professional, legally recognized equivalent in another country

Have practiced the equivalent of two years full time as a registered nurse

Have a minimum of 2,000 hours of clinical practice in the specialty area of

medical-surgical nursing within the last three years

Have completed 30 hours of continuing education in medical-surgical nursing

within the last three years " http://www.nursecredentialing.org/Eligibility/MedicalSurgicalCriteria.aspx

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

I don't intend to spend the time and money to get a BSN. I'm 51 years old and still raising children. I don't want to waste precious time writing meaningless 30 page careplans and writing fluff cultural diversity papers and other nonsense.

If BSN concentrated on hardcore clinically relavent material, then it would be valuable. I can further my knowledge base much better by going for a CCRN certification, or merely attending relavent seminars and reading nursing journals.

I can certainly agree that in your situation, with your goals getting certified and continuing ed would serve you well.

However, as you probably know, I did the RN to BSN recently through an NLN approved program, and I did none of the things you described. I didn't feel I was learning fluff. I felt my program, especially after not being in school for 16 years was highly relavent.

Obviously not all program are created equal because there's a thread in this very forum from a poster who feels the time in the RN to BSN program is wasted time.

I just hate generalations that the BSN is fluff, or "just a few management courses" and is a meaningless waste of time.

[SuesquatchRN, BSN, RN]

Yeah, Tweety, I looked around but most require the bachelors, unless it is specifically a bedside cert. According to the ANA standards and practice for informatics I can't get cert even though it's what I do, and even though I have a lot of programming credentials, 200 undergrad credits, and the RN.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Well, being "certified" is over rated anyway. :)

[SuesquatchRN, BSN, RN]

Well, being "cerified" is over rated anyway. :)

How about "certifiable?"

[HeartsOpenWide, RN]

The only good I could foresee for requiring a BSN would be that everyone would have to have it and it would end debates like these (if there is no ASN to get then you can't argue it against the BSN or vise versa). Its just sad that debates like these have to go on...every one's feelings get hurt regardless...ASN and BSN....

[GilaRRT]

I actually would support BSN for entry into nursing. I work with nurses from around the world, and I have to admit I feel a little... strange explaining the concept of a two year RN to them. Even though, most two year RN's I know actually spent three full years in school. BSN type education seems to be somewhat of a global standard.

However, most of the RN to BSN programs that I have looked into teach crap IMHO. I want to be challenged, to learn, to come out a better clinician. I simply cannot see spending thousands of dollars to go through a program that does not meet my educational and professional goals.

With that, I absolutely support a four year degree. Just give us something relevant and worth while.

[suanna]

Suanna, your post have good points to it. However I would not say my judgement is poorer than an Rn. I do not have the same education granted.

I work within my Scope of Practice, that does not mean I have not taken the same classes and CEU's over 30 years time to learn more just as the Rn's and some MD's who sat in these same continued learning conferences.

The biggest problem I see in nursing is the exclusion of everyone who does not have the so called blessed intials who works in nursing. Having seen the arguments for years. I would have thought at somepoint there would be a point of recognizing a ladder system.

Yes wonderful to have BSN or beyond to strive for. I do not necessarily see it as needed on the floors in direct care. It is why so many are in management.

There has always been room for all of us to practice.

Is the only requirement to being called a nurse is that you provide useful patient care? Should the answer be let anyone who does any patient care in any capacity call themselves a nurse? Eliminate state boards and let the centers providing the patient care provide for the training and job descriptions of the staff. I have never said the LPNs have poorer judgement (other than choosing a profession that offers limited employment opportunities) but that they are not educated or licenced to provide the SAME care as an RN. What make one patient deserving of an RN caring for them and the next gets an LPN and just hopes that if something changes in thier condition the RN in charge has the time and ability to become involved. Perhaps in the LTC setting LPNs serve a more vital role but they are still limited by thier scope of practice in what interventions they can provide, and what assessments and decisions they are entitled to make. If I am ill enough to require care greater than that that my family can provide at home I think there is good reason to have an RN actively involved in my care 24/7. That aside, I want ALL RNs to have the same level of basic education to be called a nurse. If we determine as a profession that an AD is acceptable- so be it. People can quit wasting twice as much time in school to do the same job. Our professional organizations just need to take a leadership role and MAKE A DECISION and stick to it. If an ADN is the same "nurse" as a BSN then quit offering BSNs- it's cheating people. Part of the problem is some nurses see the job as a calling- like religious vows but with more sex, others see us as science trained professionals, arm in arm with our peers the physicians, still others see it as a job with some advanced training to perform certain tasks that have a higher level of skill than is found in a HS diploma. Until we can decide what a "nurse" is how can we expect hospitals, or the public to know. I personaly wouldn't be opposed to requiring a MSN to call yourself a nurse-that takes me out of the picture for now, but that is the minimal educational base for most occupations that call themselves "profession". This has been a debate since I was a student in the earily

1980s- lets decide before the 2080s.

[lpnflorida, LPN]

To address what makes one patient more deserving of an Rn's care versus an Lpn's care . Not all patients are critical care, isn't that why our patient move from ICU down the road to the more general floors. Assignments should be based on need of patient's acuity.

You would not give a green grad Rn some critical patients just as you would not give them to me. In some cases however you would give a patient to me over a green grad Rn as you would realize I am seasoned/experienced enough to care for them.

There are many patients we Lpn's are capable of taking care. If a problem arises with a patient every Rn I have ever worked with has been available when needed. Just as I am available to them.

We Lpn's no longer work in the so called critical areas, even though once upon a time we did. In the areas we are still allowed to work we do call the doctors, we receive the appropriate orders. We follow through with what is needed. Our Rn's have learned how to work with us and we with them. It has worked out well.

It is not about who is deserving of an Rn being their primary nurse all of our patients have an Rn and they also have we Lpn's would are doing their direct care.

Again I recognize not all Lpn's in all areas of the country have as wide a scope of practice. If this were standardized more then perhaps you would see how we also provide excellent care to patients.

I am not trying to highjack the thread. I just hate seeing Lpn's thrown under the bus. I have always worked in the hospital setting . I would like to finish my career in the hospital setting.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

With that, I absolutely support a four year degree. Just give us something relevant and worth while.

Can you give some examples as to courses that you'd like to see in RN to BSN programs?

[GilaRRT]

With a dedicated four year program, I would like to see the final year dedicated to solid clinical experience. One of the biggest obstacles new RN's face (AD and BS) is the fact that they receive unrealistic clinical experience. An "intern like" year of nursing experience where students rotate through several units and experience the reality of nursing while having strong support mechanisms in place to ensure they are not hung out to dry, would be an optimal experience.

This is one of the biggest problems IMHO. New grads are being thrown into the chaos of healthcare without adequate preparation and orientation to the realities of modern nursing. While theory is quite interesting, we need to focus on reality. We loose many nurses in the first few years of their careers because I feel they are overwhelmed and unprepared to deal with the reality of nursing. While I suspect nursing program attrition rates would be higher, I think new grads would be much better prepared for entry into nursing and have realistic expectations regarding the work place.

So, my optimal program would be a four year program where the final year is clinically intensive.

Regarding a RN to BSN program: This is a bit tricky because the chances are, the RN already has clinical experience, so a clinically intensive year may not be as helpful. In this situation, I would like to see a stronger emphasis on specialty care. Perhaps a multi track program. I believe core courses such as a research course, pathophysiology course, and advanced pharmacology course would be standard for all students; however, offering a specialty track of courses and clinical experience specific to the nurses area of specialization or interest would be a great way to augment the nurses existing education. Now, we have BSN's with specialty experience that they can take back to the work place. You create interest with potential students while providing "specialists" to the work force. Everybody wins, and nursing remains progressive and adaptable.

IMHO as always.