Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Urgent Plea To Tell Gov't Importance Of Overseas Nurses

Everyone, this is a detailed but urgent message. Please take a few minutes to read it and act now.

To All Concerned:

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has launched a consultation on new standards they have proposed for registration of nurses trained outside the European Economic Area (EEA). New standards that aim to streamline the process, avoid wasteful and expensive bureaucracy and most importantly of all ensure nurses practicing in the UK maintain the high standards the NMC expects and patients deserve is welcome.

Keep in mind, before regulations that went into effect in 2007-2009 that included the requirement that nurses come to the UK and take a pointless 20 day course before being approved to work, the UK welcomed more than 2000 nurses a year. That number plummeted to less than 400 immediately and has never recovered. This is why it’s essential we speak out now. We need to create a system that maintains our standards without unnecessarily deterring qualified nurses from working in the UK.

However, the two alternate plans they suggest are flawed and add to waste, expense and bureaucracy. We urge you to read their proposals online, read our opinion and weigh in with your comments to the NMC. Now is the time when you can have the most significant impact in the formulation of policy and regulations that will affect you, your work and the health care quality in the UK for many years to come.

The NMC has two proposals. The first option includes an English exam, three years of university training, a board exam and an in-country clinical exam. The second option includes all of those elements plus a period of supervised practice.

Here’s our opinion; we urge you to share yours with the NMC.  Links to their website and further information can be found at the bottom.


*As mandated by the EU, overseas nurses must have a minimum of a three-year degree in nursing.
*Nurses must demonstrate competency in English; we fully support this. The NMC says all overseas nurses must take an English competency exam. We believe those nurses who have earned their degree in an English-speaking institution should be considered competent. It is a waste of time and money – for example -- to ask an Australian nurse to take an English proficiency exam. Keep in mind, all nurses will be taking a board exam in English.
*We recommend overseas nurses who did not earn their degree at an English-speaking institution take an English language exam. However, the one and only test approved by the NMC has standards set so high that most English-speaking, born and bred subjects of the UK would fail it. The NMC requires a minimum of 7 (which is the equivalent to a Masters degree) in all four areas of testing. We recommend either a minimum of 6.0 in the four categories or a 6.5 overall as a reasonable standard. This would not constitute “lowering” standards but setting them at an appropriate, high level.
*The NMC says nurses who meet the training and English competency standards will be given a board exam in their home country to demonstrate competency in nursing, including a clinical testing component. We fully agree; this practice is in place in other countries and is effective. The board exam should be robust and include critical thinking and clinical scenarios. Since this test is administered in English, it’s also a de facto English language competency exam.
*The NMC proposes a separate exam on clinical testing to be done in the UK after nurses arrive but before they’re cleared to practice. We strongly disagree. This is wasteful, hugely expensive for the NMC, time-consuming, an operational nightmare and would be made unnecessary by a properly designed board exam that was thorough and robust.
*The NMC proposes a period of  “supervised practice” – a period of many months where nurses are forced to work below their skill level and hospitals must squander precious man-hours and money. We strongly disagree. “Supervised practice” is a wasteful, extremely expensive hurdle that has led to the exploitation of overseas nurses. It fulfills no purpose and does not weed out unfit nurses. Finally, “supervised practice” is a solution in search of a problem. If it served any purpose, why doesn’t the UK require its own nurses to undergo the same time-consuming and expensive process? We don’t recommend this for doing so would not improve quality in any way and would do nothing but encourage the exploitation of newly graduated UK nurses. All nurses require orientation, whether they were trained in Sheffield or Sydney; this is already provided by their employers and “supervised practice” is a redundant and wasteful extension of what already occurs at every medical institution.

If you agree with us, it’s essential you contact the NMC and let them know right now while your voice matters most. You can email them directly below. You can cut and paste our proposals above or put them into your own words. Just make sure you influence the debate before these proposals are locked in stone and we have to live with them and their potentially damaging effects on the UK health care system for years to come.


THREE WAYS FOR YOU TO RESPOND AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD:

Email them at: consultations@nmc-uk.org

Write them to directly at:

NMC
Consultation on Overseas Competency Test
23 Portland Place
London W1B 1PZ

Take their online survey about the proposals:


(This is the least satisfying because it limits you at certain key points to their flawed plans.)


The NMC Launches Consultation link:


Now here’s the issue laid out in more depth.

THE ISSUE: Nurses are trained all over the world. The European Union has established standards for what it considers qualified training in nursing. Since every country establishes credentials in varying ways, the EU standards include requirements that many nurses in the rest of the world do not exactly match. We know from long experience that the nurses in highly developed countries have training equal to our own; indeed, the UK has recently raised its degree requirement to match the standards set before by other countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

What to do with the nurses whose training measurements invariably do not match up exactly with EU requirements?

THE NMC PROPOSED OPTIONS

As mandated by the EU, all nurses must demonstrate a minimum of a three-year degree in nursing. The NMC then states that those nurses must also pass an English competency test known as an IELTS. Those nurses that achieve these standards will then proceed to the following step.

The NMC offers two options for consideration, both of which have flaws.

Option one includes what is commonly understood as a board exam in their home country, a thorough testing of the nurse’s competence to ensure they meet the same standards expected of our entry level nurses who have just achieved their three year degree and are ready to begin working. This would be followed by a clinical testing exam in the UK.

Option two would include the board exam in their home country, the clinical testing in the UK and a lengthy period of supervised practice with standards set by the NMC.

OUR PROPOSAL

*As mandated by the EU, all nurses must have achieved a minimum of a three-year degree in nursing.
* Nurses must demonstrate competency in English; we fully support this. The NMC says all overseas nurses must take an English competency exam. We believe those nurses who have earned their degree in an English-speaking institution should be considered competent. It is a waste of time and money – for example -- to ask an Australian nurse to take an English proficiency exam. Keep in mind, all nurses will be taking a board exam in English.
* We recommend overseas nurses who did not earn their degree at an English-speaking institution take an English language exam. However, the one and only test approved by the NMC has standards set so high that most English-speaking, born and bred subjects of the UK would fail it. The NMC requires a minimum of 7 (which is the equivalent to a Masters degree) in all four areas of testing. We recommend either a minimum of 6.0 in the four categories or a 6.5 overall as a reasonable standard. This would not constitute “lowering” standards but setting them at an appropriate, high level.
* The NMC says nurses who meet the training and English competency standards will be given a board exam in their home country to demonstrate competency in nursing, including a clinical testing component. We fully agree; this practice is in place in other countries and is effective. The board exam should be robust and include critical thinking and clinical scenarios. Since this test is administered in English, it’s also a de facto English language competency exam.
* The NMC proposes a separate exam on clinical testing to be done in the UK after nurses arrive but before they’re cleared to practice. We strongly disagree. This is wasteful, hugely expensive for the NMC, time-consuming, an operational nightmare and would be made unnecessary by a properly designed board exam that was thorough and robust.
* The NMC proposes a period of  “supervised practice” – a period of many months where nurses are forced to work below their skill level and hospitals must squander precious man-hours and money. We strongly disagree. “Supervised practice” is a wasteful, extremely expensive hurdle that has led to the exploitation of overseas nurses. It fulfills no purpose and does not weed out unfit nurses. Finally, “supervised practice” is a solution in search of a problem. If it served any purpose, why doesn’t the UK require its own nurses to undergo the same time-consuming and expensive process? We don’t recommend this for doing so would not improve quality in any way and would do nothing but encourage the exploitation of newly graduated UK nurses. All nurses require orientation, whether they were trained in Sheffield or Sydney; this is already provided by their employers and “supervised practice” is a redundant and wasteful extension of what already occurs at every medical institution.

WHY THE NMC’S PROPOSALS ARE FLAWED, ONEROUS, AND EXPENSIVE

The Board Exam – this is a vital reform and long overdue. Other countries use a board exam to ascertain incoming nurses meet their standards. It should be rigorous and thorough and include critical thinking and clinical scenarios. Properly designed, it can and will weed out any nurses whose training has been subpar and does not meet the standards expected by highly developed nations, the NMC, the UK and the EU. We applaud the NMC and trust that this exam – which will be administered in the nurse’s home country and is a practical and reasonable step before coming to the UK – will offer the quality control we all desire and expect.

The Clinical Testing – This is proposed as a further test the nurses must take after coming to the UK and before being certified to practice. Any good board exam will incorporate clinical situations. Adding this step creates unnecessary expense and bureaucracy. Asking for it to take place in the UK creates an almost insurmountable bureaucratic hurdle.

Supervised Practice – this proposal that all nurses undergo supervised practice for a lengthy period (suggestions have ranged from six months to nine months) is unacceptable on many levels.

1.     Supervised Practice is exceptionally expensive – we estimate that if 2000 nurses a year underwent Supervised Practice, it would incur costs of tens of millions of pounds a year. All estimates say the UK will be 50,000 nurses short in just a few years time. So the number of nurses coming in and this expense this will incur would rise dramatically.
2.     Supervised Practice amounts to slave labor – fully trained nurses would be forced to work as nursing assistants for an extended period of time, far underneath the skill level for which they are trained. This is an opportunity for exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
3.     Supervised Practice does not improve quality or weed out poor nurses – Over time, we’ve seen virtually every nurse that has entered Supervised Practice has “passed” it, though saying they “passed” it implies some standards which do not exist. It is merely a professional limbo that no new UK nursing graduate is asked to undergo. It incurs huge costs in lost manpower, lost money and lost time; it has no purpose, achieves no goal, fulfills no need.

Everyone’s goal is to maintain the highest standards for health care. We should keep in mind that the standard we are asking these nurses to meet is the same standard of a new UK nursing graduate that is about to start their first day on the job.

All nurses must have a minimum of a three-year degree in nursing. All nurses must demonstrate competency in English, either by the fact that they have achieved that degree in an English-speaking setting or by passing an English exam.

All nurses meeting these requirements who do not meet the exact specifications laid out by the EEA must then take a rigorous and thorough board exam. Those that pass the exam to the NMC’s satisfaction will be certified as meeting our standards and qualified to practice in the UK.

Like every UK nurse, they will begin their jobs with an orientation,  a meds test and then be supervised until the hospital or other medical facility has used its judgment to determine they are competent to fulfill their duties. Those decisions are best made by the employer working directly with the nurse, whether that nurse was trained in Manchester or Manila.

These responsibilities of the employer would always be present. Therefore we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking wasteful, expensive and time-consuming testing and “supervised practice” achieve anything other than waste, expense and time-consumption.

A separate clinical test in the UK would be pointless with a properly designed board exam. It would add extraordinary expense and a bureaucratic hurdle few nurses would tackle.

Supervised practice achieves absolutely nothing, encourages exploitation of overseas workers and was created out of whole cloth without any need or express purpose. The simple fact that new UK nursing graduates are not asked to undergo nine months of “supervised practice” is enough to demonstrate its pointlessness. If it served any purpose (which it does not) then every UK nurse who enters the workforce would undergo supervised practice as well. That would achieve nothing other than to make them ripe for exploitation as well by unscrupulous employers.

The two proposed options by the NMC both contain major flaws. However, a board exam taken by nurses in their home country is a “best practice” instituted by other countries around the world. It is a valuable final test that can weed out nurses whose training does not meet UK standards. It is a direct and meaningful way to ascertain that nurses with training outside the EEA are competent to enter the workforce with the same certification as new UK nursing graduates.

Employers are best placed to provide the level or orientation, testing (such as the “meds” test required by all UK hospitals) and supervision necessary for EVERY nurse, whether they were trained in Stratford or Sydney.

A streamlined reform of the overseas competency test that includes a minimum of a three year degree in nursing, demonstration of competency in English (via the degree being achieved in an English speaking institution or via an English exam) and the passing of a thorough and rigorous board exam that includes critical thinking in clinical situations will achieve the essential goal of ensuring the UK’s and EEA’s high standards of training are met without inviting unnecessary bureaucracy, wasteful testing, onerous expense or the exploitation of international nurses via so-called “supervised practice.”


The NMC Launches Consultation link:


More NMC Consultation Information link:


The Full NMC “Overseas Competency Test for United Kingdom Registration” Document link:


Three WAYS FOR YOU TO RESPOND AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD:

Take their online survey about the proposals:


(This is the least satisfying because it limits you at certain key points to their flawed plans.)

Email them at: consultations@nmc-uk.org

Write them to directly at:

NMC
Consultation on Overseas Competency Test
23 Portland Place
London W1B 1PZ

Per the NMC: If you would like further information about this consultation, or information in an alternative format, please contact Anne Trotter by email: Anne.Trotter@nmc-uk.org or telephone 020 7681 5779.