Excuse me, but what of us oldsters who qualified as registered nurses in the days of yore, have kept ourselves updated and up to date, moved with the times but were trained and educated pre the degree-only regime? Are we not worthy to be called 'nurse'?
Comment on: Government confirms new 'nursing associate' role
If these new associate nurses are regulated by the NMC then I am all for it. There is a great deal of good old nursing care that is currently done by HCAs who have variable training and are not regulated. Graduate RNs today have a role far removed from that I had when I first qualified in the 80s. We all lament the passing of nurses who gave basic nursing care but do you really need a degree to do that? I think not; you can have a degree and be a nurse but you don't need a degree to be one (I speak as a nurse who qualified under the old regime but later went on to graduate.) Creating this new role and bridging the gap between HCA and RN, making it possible and more accessible to progress from one to the other, is not a retrograde step or a return to SENs of yesteryear. It is a logical way of increasing nurse numbers. I'd like to think that those at the top who see it as the way forward may just be realising that making nursing a completely graduate profession was a bit of an expensive mistake. There is plenty of room out there for both graduate and (for want of a better word) certified (registered?) nurses.