Yet another excelsior college question r/t reciprocity in Calif

Sheri257 · Oct 5, 2005

But what LVN who was capable of passing it wouldn't do it?
What's the alternative? A state school system that in many cases, forces an LVN to complete most if not all of an entire ADN program with little or any recognition for clinicals and theory already completed.
Even the 30 unit option, at least in my case, would have only shaved off a negligible amount of coursework and you might as well just get the whole ADN in case you decide to work elsewhere.
And let's not even get into the waiting lists.

I also see your point here. But it's not like it's any big secret that this is what is required for an LVN to become an RN in California. If someone decides to become an LVN rather than go straight through an RN program then, that's their choice.

But who's problem is that? The state's or the individual's?

There are tons of people who waited years to get into the RN program and, there are also lots of LVN's who met the requirements for traditional programs. How is allowing other LVN's to go through the quicker EC route fair to any of those people who are playing by the rules?

Keep in mind that one major reason LVN's have to go through the entire program is that 50 percent of them fail the challenge exams. But for those LVN's who do pass at least some of the exams, they get to bypass the waiting lists and directly enter second semester without the two year wait. And if they pass all of the exams, they go straight to third semester, saving a year of school and another two years with the waiting list.

So those LVN's are getting at least some benefit from their previous schooling/experience. And the LVN's who don't pass can always retake the challenge exams and still save time bypassing the two year waiting list. They only lose one semester when they retake the exams (assuming, of course, that they pass the second time around).

But I still don't see how any of this justifies suspending the requirements for EC. Nursing school is inconvenient for everyone, be it LVN or people who wait years to get in. So ... it still begs the question: why does EC deserve special treatment over everybody else?

:coollook:

Jo Dirt · Oct 5, 2005

My husband works in a hospital in S .Cali that had a problem some time ago with EC grads ...rumor has it that it had alot to do with the CA decision ( they employ many EC grads there at this point). The nurses in question were LPN's before they were EC RN's.....NOT CMA's or SURGICAL TECHS!

Is this why EC no longer allows CMA's or surgical techs in their program?

MedictoRN · Oct 5, 2005

The key word in that is RUMOR. There have never been any substantiated claims. They reason that EC doesn't allow CMA's or Surg Techs in the program is due ultimately to the power of the nursing unions and nurses who can't stand the thought that they put up with nasty preceptors and someone else might not have to do that.

Is this why EC no longer allows CMA's or surgical techs in their program?

RN34TX · Oct 5, 2005

I also see your point here. But it's not like it's any big secret that this is what is required for an LVN to become an RN in California. If someone decides to become an LVN rather than go straight through an RN program then, that's their choice.
But who's problem is that? The state's or the individual's?
There are tons of people who waited years to get into the RN program and, there are also lots of LVN's who met the requirements for traditional programs. How is allowing other LVN's to go through the quicker EC route fair to any of those people who are playing by the rules?
Keep in mind that one major reason LVN's have to go through the entire program is that 50 percent of them fail the challenge exams. But for those LVN's who do pass at least some of the exams, they get to bypass the waiting lists and directly enter second semester without the two year wait. And if they pass all of the exams, they go straight to third semester, saving a year of school and another two years with the waiting list.
So those LVN's are getting at least some benefit from their previous schooling/experience. And the LVN's who don't pass can always retake the challenge exams and still save time bypassing the two year waiting list. They only lose one semester when they retake the exams (assuming, of course, that they pass the second time around).
But I still don't see how any of this justifies suspending the requirements for EC. Nursing school is inconvenient for everyone, be it LVN or people who wait years to get in. So ... it still begs the question: why does EC deserve special treatment over everybody else?

It doesn't, and none of the above justifies EC getting special treatment.

My position and the intention of my input was pointing out a severely flawed system on both ends (EC and the CA BNE.)

As far as who's problem it is that LVN's get screwed when trying to transition in the CA school sysytem, I say that it is both the individual's problem as well as the state.

The LVN wants to complain that they are getting little and possibly no recognition for their previous program but they knew how RN schools in the state are set up when they decided to go the LVN route in the first place.

The state wants to complain about having a severe RN shortage but won't address having an often very inefficient method of transitioning LVN's into RN's. They instead chose to focus on EC which isn't helping their shortage, statutes or not.

Is it any wonder so many CA LVN's opted for EC rather than their own state schools in the first place?

IMHO, if given both choices for your average acute care LVN and CA never had a problem with it, you'd have to be an idiot to pick the traditional program and repeat classes who's exams you didn't pass, sit on waiting lists, spend your days in clinical rotations showing your instructor that you know how to do things you do at work every day when you could be working for pay instead, etc.

But, sigh, I do know that isn't the point.

I just wish I was seeing something proactive being done from either side, but particularly on EC's part, for the benefit of it's current and future students, as well as for the benefit of past grads like me to improve their bad reputation in the state.

Letting EC grads slide by the rules isn't right, but cutting them out all together for the rest of eternity isn't the answer either.

And CA's current method of transitioning LVN's is definitely not the answer either.

Revamp your programs everyone!

Jo Dirt · Oct 5, 2005

The key word in that is RUMOR. There have never been any substantiated claims. They reason that EC doesn't allow CMA's or Surg Techs in the program is due ultimately to the power of the nursing unions and nurses who can't stand the thought that they put up with nasty preceptors and someone else might not have to do that.

Would you have the documentation to back up this claim?

Sheri257 · Oct 6, 2005

IMHO, if given both choices for your average acute care LVN and CA never had a problem with it, you'd have to be an idiot to pick the traditional program and repeat classes who's exams you didn't pass, sit on waiting lists, spend your days in clinical rotations showing your instructor that you know how to do things you do at work every day when you could be working for pay instead, etc.
But, sigh, I do know that isn't the point.

Again, I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Due to this discussion, I asked a couple of the experienced LVN's today what they thought about repeating some of the coursework they had already taken in LVN school. Were they getting anything more out of RN program than what they learned in LVN school or on the job?

Since they both work Med-Surg, repeating that part wasn't really helpful to them. But with specialties like OB, which they were taught in LVN school, they felt like they were getting a much better education with the RN program. They felt their LVN programs were lacking in OB training, and it's one of the reasons they couldn't pass the OB portion of the challenge exams. They said the RN coursework was much more detailed than LVN school, and they also found the clinicals to be much better, even though they had some OB clinicals in LVN school.

BTW, I am not saying that all LVN schools are lacking in OB training. I'm just repeating what these two LVN's told me about their particular schools and how they felt it affected their ability to pass the challenge exams. Which, btw, is what the challenge exams are all about. If you know the stuff and pass the exams, you go on to the next semester. If you don't, then you repeat the course work.

I could see why it would be tough because, as you may know, OB is highly specialized and even experienced RN's usually have to go through at least three months orientation if they haven't done it before. There is a ton of information to learn. According to these LVN's, they felt like they would be better prepared to go into OB because they went through the RN program.

So ... I'm not so sure that LVN's are always wasting their time, even if they are repeating some things, because the specialties are a big part of what LVN's learn when they transition to RN's. And the LVN's in my class say they haven't worked in or studied the specialties that much.

EC's lack of clinicals in the specialties, btw, was one of the big sticking points with board, since the CPNE doesn't comprehensively test for all of the specialities required in California RN programs.

Like I said ... I do think there's a method to the madness, so to speak.

:smokin:

RN34TX · Oct 6, 2005

They said the RN coursework was much more detailed than LVN school, and they also found the clinicals to be much better, even though they had some OB clinicals in LVN school.
BTW, I am not saying that all LVN schools are lacking in OB training. I'm just repeating what these two LVN's told me about their particular schools and how they felt it affected their ability to pass the challenge exams. Which, btw, is what the challenge exams are all about. If you know the stuff and pass the exams, you go on to the next semester. If you don't, then you repeat the course work.
I could see why it would be tough because, as you may know, OB is highly specialized and even experienced RN's usually have to go through at least three months orientation if they haven't done it before. There is a ton of information to learn. According to these LVN's, they felt like they would be better prepared to go into OB because they went through the RN program.
So ... I'm not so sure that LVN's are always wasting their time, even if they are repeating some things, because the specialties are a big part of what LVN's learn when they transition to RN's. And the LVN's in my class say they haven't worked in or studied the specialties that much.

I wouldn't say that they are always wasting their time either, and some truely do need it and would not do well the EC route.

I've met only 4 LVN's in my experience who felt that their RN education made a big difference in their practice. All 4 had the same thing in common:

All 4 felt that they weren't very good nurses to begin with and that their LVN education did not properly prepare them for work as a nurse and that going back to school made a huge difference to them. Great for them.

So did these people get substandard LVN training to begin with? Who knows?

Did they just lack the confidence and perhaps the greater depth in education gave them a better understanding to be better nurses? No clue.

All of the others who attended both my chosen RN school at the time as well as two others in the Dallas area complained that they didn't get much of anything out of their RN programs and I was told again and again that if I could "test out" (meaning EC) to go for it and not "waste my time."

Some of these people started at EC but quit because they found it difficult to stay motivated to study on your own and went the traditional route.

As far as OB goes, it just happened to me last week. Our unit was taking C-section overflows because OB/L&D was backed up with no beds. I hadn't dealt with lochia, pitocin drips, or fundus checks since LVN school!

I followed two then started taking my own with another RN to watch me. Then I was ok on my own with them.

Would RN level OB clinicals have been helpful to me in this situation? Sure.

Necessary? No.

Even if I had RN level OB clinicals, I still would have needed some orientation with fresh C-sections as would any RN with no OB experience.

I have no doubt that I could get oriented/precepted to OB in the same amount of time as an RN that went the traditional route with OB clinicals.

I was the only one in my new grad class to finish ICU orientation early and for me that says plenty.

My point here is this: The CA laws are ignoring the fact that yes, there are plenty of us EC grads alive and well who are in fact doing just fine despite our lack of RN clinicals in the specialties or otherwise.

I would think that if plenty of us are doing fine, that one might begin to question the validity and necessity of sending LVN's through all of these rotations to become RN's when it's clear that plenty of us are doing just fine without it. Are these clinicals truely necessary to be a competent RN?

I'm one living example that they are not.

The powers that be in CA, IMHO, are making it out that the fly-by-night-no- experience MA's turned RN via EC who are clueless once they hit the floor to be the vast majority of what EC churns out and that they are a menace to their hospitals.

If that were true, this stuff would have surfaced long before now because EC has been graduating nurses for over 30 years.

I understand what CA is trying to achieve, whether political or out of true concern for citizen safety, but I still find it disturbing and even insulting that in the midst of everything being considered, those of us who have been doing just fine as RN's for years don't even factor in and we are completely ignored while bad ones are looked at as the norm and the supposed motivation for the changes in licensure laws.

Sheri257 · Oct 6, 2005

My point here is this: The CA laws are ignoring the fact that yes, there are plenty of us EC grads alive and well who are in fact doing just fine despite our lack of RN clinicals in the specialties or otherwise.
I would think that if plenty of us are doing fine, that one might begin to question the validity and necessity of sending LVN's through all of these rotations to become RN's when it's clear that plenty of us are doing just fine without it. Are these clinicals truely necessary to be a competent RN?
I'm one living example that they are not.

Now this is where I think you're completely off base here. Basically, you're saying ... EC grads don't need these clinicals. They can do fine without them, even when they don't have any previous training or exposure to the specialty.

Obviously you do believe they deserve special treatment.

That is ridiculous. If we started suspending requirements for everybody who said they didn't need them, there wouldn't be any nursing education at all. Before you know it, there would be no standards and anybody off the street could get an RN license.

How can you say that people don't need training in Cardiac, ICU, Geriatrics, Psych etc. ... all of the specialties that are required by law. Or ... are we supposed to make a special exception just for you because you're such a great nurse?

This is beyond absurd. Throw out all the laws and all the standards that the vast majority of nursing schools around the country follow just for you and any other EC grad that says they don't need it? Even when they've never taken a course or trained in those fields?

These are the specialties that professional nurses are supposed to be trained in before they become RN's. That is the standard, and there are good reasons for those standards.

Usually people argue for higher standards of education but you're basically arguing for lower standards. Sorry but, this argument will never fly. It does nothing but hurt EC's credibility. And then you guys are shocked when your peers don't always view the program favorably.

This is not just about MA's or Surgical Techs. That is what triggered the investigation. But when the board reviewed the program which, unfortunately, they hadn't done in 14 years, that's when they realized there were huge gaps in EC's program, not just with clinical hours, but with the specialties that are covered in third and forth semesters.

What you're failing to understand is the following: Regardless of experience and everything else ... If you continue to let people in who attended schools that don't meet the standards, you are essentially lowering the standards of education. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the shortage and everything else but, the board is not going to lower their education standards for anyone.

:clown:

RN34TX · Oct 7, 2005

Now take it easy Lizz!

Remember, I want resolution here, not more division.

If you think that my ideas are lowering the standards of nursing education and that my EC degree is substandard compared to the one you will one day receive, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

You may not know or work with me to verify any of my arguements, but it still hurts my feelings nonetheless that you will one day be an RN and look at me as substandard because of my EC degree.

I could be orienting you to the ICU or PACU someday and you still might be looking down on me as a new green nurse without a clue and not yet able to care for these patients on your own.

I wasn't trying to say that I'm such a great nurse. I was only trying to point out that I'm in a group of ignored EC grads.

I was only citing my personal experience as a new RN in ICU and how well I did despite my lack of clinical education. Should I be sent back to school?

You're right. It's not just about MA's and surgical techs, but what about us?

What about those of us who are functioning as RN's, meeting and/or exceeding standards at work every day? We didn't have any of these supposedly "essential" in order to be a competent RN clinicals, and yet we're doing fine.

What does that say about the clinicals?

Shouldn't that raise a red flag to someone questioning the need for them?

The CPNE does not test all areas required by CA law.

My idea was to make a bigger version of the CPNE. One that tests all required areas to include OB, psych, etc.

The clinicals would be treated the same as the theory exams currently being administered at CA schools.

You could test your way through the program. If you can't pass certain clinical exams, then you would need to go through the clinical rotation instead.

It would eliminate putting people through clinicals or theory classes that they don't need because they acquired the knowledge elsewhere either through LVN school or the work setting.

At the same time, it would help identify problem areas for students who had difficulty passing a certain specialty clinical exam, they'd have to go through the clinical rotation and hopefully would serve as a safety net to help prevent the "slipping through the cracks" thing.

Of course, every nursing school has students who slip through and are not safe to practice nursing upon becoming RN's, but I think that it would at least help and at the same time, create a more efficient method of transitioning LVN's into RN's.

Would this be such a bad or substandard education for nurses and/or a possible solution to the CA vs. EC problem?

Jo Dirt · Oct 7, 2005

I've learned after nearly 10 yrs. in the healthcare field that a good nurse will be a good nurse whether they got their degree out of the back of a magazine or from some ivy league school.

A stupid, lazy indifferent person will not benefit from the best (nursing) education, but it has been proven time and again that people who are determined can and will find a way to succeed and be good at what they do. Benjamin Franklin was self taught and had virtually no formal education growing up. So did Abe Lincoln. Most self made millionaires do not have a college degree. Yet you will find no shortage of highly educated losers who had every opportunity to succeed but because of their attitudes and lack of motivation are so untrustworthy they cannot hold jobs.

The same can be seen in the nursing field. You can't say who is going to be a good nurse or who doesn't deserve to be a nurse because they went to Joe's School of Nursing at PO Box 543, Hooterville, USA instead of Vanderbilt School of Nursing or UCLA School of Nursing.

SierraC · Oct 7, 2005

Is this why EC no longer allows CMA's or surgical techs in their program?

I am not sure why they do not accept them anymore. They accepted me because I had finished and passed the first year of RN school and choose to not continue because I was pregnant with my second child.

SierraC · Oct 7, 2005

EC made this argument at the time of the decision. It didn't fly. The shortage was already really bad when the board made their decision. And the waiting lists at all the nursing schools was already miles long. If the California board was inclined to change their mind just because of the shortage they would have already done so in the last two years.
You're overlooking the fact that the board had a tremendous amount of support for their decision including three state nursing associations, Kaiser as well as other hospitals.
Well ... all I can say is that this kind of attitude is probably what got EC in the trouble in the first place. I'm sure that all of the nurses who work in ICU, cardiac cath labs, dialysis units, anesthesia and other highly specialized fields that require a tremendous amount of knowledge and training would be interested to learn that what they do is not rocket science. :chuckle

What I meant by that is that it is not an advanced degree!