Is the licensure
system for nursing harming the profession? Serious consideration
should be given to developing a new strategy that reflects both
the differences inherent in the variety of entry-level educational
programs and the expectations for practice upon graduation.
Two interrelated
features of licensure practice are particularly problematic. First,
one licensure examination is not appropriate for graduates of
all entry-level programs. Second, nursing must reconstruct the
process for developing and administering the licensure examination.
Today, graduates
of all entry-level programs sit for the same examination, regardless
of the type of program from which they graduate. This creates
unintended negative consequences, confuses the public and potential
students, and compromises the clinical development of the discipline.
Through the
years, there has been much debate about this practice, with those
from baccalaureate programs arguing that the examination does
not adequately reflect the scope of practice of the baccalaureate
graduate. The rationale for the "one exam fits all"
policy is that the state boards are charged with assuring that
new graduates can perform safely and effectively as newly licensed
RNs.
Thus, all
who use that title should demonstrate the same level of competency
before licensure.
Because the
present approach to testing and licensure does not acknowledge
differences in either educational preparation or the scope of
practice, many administrators who hire nurses do not feel there
is a basis for differentiating nursing roles or salaries.
This lack
of differentiation is in sharp contrast to the approach taken
by other disciplines, such as physical therapy, which has physical
therapy assistants, and engineering, which has technical engineers,
both prepared at the associate degree level.
Most importantly,
the practice roles of the physical therapist and the engineer
differ from those of their technical counterparts. In these fields,
the differences in licensure are consistent with the level of
educational preparation.
Unfortunately
for nursing, the lack of differentiation based on education and
reinforced in many work settings serves to diminish the importance
of education in clinical practice and is a major disincentive
to associate degree- and diploma-prepared nurses to continue their
education.
What can be
done about the licensure situation? One path is to focus on the
scope of practice of the various types of nurses and connect the
educational preparation and licensure process to the scope of
practice.
This would
demand that those associated with AD and BSN programs and nursing
service leaders come to grips with this issue and amend the examination
and licensure process accordingly.
Perhaps nursing
should adopt a more sequential process with some parts of the
examination offered at graduation and others after graduates transition
into the full scope of their new role.
It might make
sense to have BSN and AD graduates take a part of the exam that
is similar, but if the scope of practice is different, BSN graduates
would be required to pass additional components that may address
the science base and other facets of the broader scope.
Nursing is
at a crossroads in a highly complex health care environment. We
know that we need nursing personnel at various levels; the question
is how best to structure the educational preparation, the transition
into practice, the practice roles and the licensure/certification
processes to achieve the best outcomes for the public.
In an effort
to address the issues from the baccalaureate perspective, the
American Association of Colleges of Nursing has formed a Task
Force on Education and Regulation to define a more logical and
coherent approach to linking education, practice roles and licensure.
The task force
believes that much more attention must be paid to how we prepare
and manage entry into the field of nursing.
Other groups
are encouraged to engage this issue and work toward a more rational
and effective approach to preparing and developing nurse clinicians.