Re: New certification

[Martha Pike]

- All professional certifications are a VOLUNTARY process.  - Many nurses already choose to have multiple credentials. This is up to the individual - no one forces any of us to do this. - Many nurses see multiple credentials as an enhancement to their professional growth and part of a very desirable life long learning process. - There are over 30 different certification credentials that can be obtained just through the American Nurses Association alone. -  Every specialty organization offers a certification process for the clinicians in that group. - There is already overlap between the ANA process and other organizations. (For example, there are several ways to obtain a credential for pain management.) - All of these other organizations get along just fine. - Why should AVA be singled out and prohibited from providing this service to it's members and to the public? - In evaluating the evolving AVA process it will be more helpful to you to look at ASPEN as an example of an organization that provides multidisciplinary certification. They have certification processes for nurses, dietitians AND physicians.  - See the websites for the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition - http://www.nutritiioncertify.org    and    http://www.nutritioncare.org  - Many INS members are also members of AVA and really and truly ENJOY the benefits of BOTH organizations. This is not a contest - it does not need to be a conflict - this can easily be a WIN-WIN for nurses in both groups. - Those who are concerned would be more effective if they focused their efforts on helping those INS members who find AVA's process threatening develop a broader and more collegial view. This would be a MUCH more beneficial process than a campaign to stop AVA's development. - This has been said before, but deserves repetition: The fact that AVA is a multidisciplinary group and includes physicians ENHANCES the development, acceptance,  and recognition of vascular access and infusion nursing as an important specialty and can only help INS members in the long run. (Unless they choose to shoot themselves in the foot of course....) - If you truly want to influence the development and direction of AVA's credentialing process, you need to do that within the AVA organization. - Finally, I know that this is an overused quote, but "Can't we all just get along?" /Martha On Oct 3, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Heather Nichols wrote: >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/3/2006 8:57 AM >>> Leigh Ann, the reason I ONLY mention nurses is two fold--1--I am a nurse, so I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I am trying to start a dialog about this certification, among all AVA members, not just nurses.  2--Certification is something that is only important to nurses.   Sales reps, pharmacists, engineers do not have certifications in their field, so this will mean nothing to them...it will be a "nice" for some but for most, meaningless.  MDs are BOARD certified, and again, this certification will be meaningless to them.  As far as breaking away from INS--I am speaking figuratively, OF COURSE, not literally. Having been a member of AVA and NAVAN for the past 6 years, I am well aware of the history and animosity between the two groups.  If you are not, then I invite you to come to FL for an INS meeting--and ask how many belong to or have ever heard of AVA--the answer is 2-3 out of 200.  I would like to see AV A and INS working together, because, as you say, they address two different but interconnected aspects of infusion therapy.  The concern I addressed is that this addtional certification WILL be seen by INS as in opposition to the CRNI, not in addition to....and therefore cause INS to pull their recert credits from AVA conferences and lead to LESS cooperation between the two groups, not more. Chris Cavanaugh, CRNI ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, October 2, 2006 10:00 pm Subject: Re: New certification To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cannot help but notice that you only mention nurses. That is not > the focus of AVA. Yes, we do have more nurses than any other > discipline, but we are working to recruit more members from other > disciplines. It is not appropriate for us to focus only on nurses. > Our Board is not part of INS, regardless of how many members and > Board members may also be members of INS, therefore there is no > question of breaking away from INS. I am on the AVA Board of > Directors and am a member of the Girl Scouts of the USA, but we > have no discussions about the Board breaking away from the GSUSA. > Leigh Ann > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 5:56 PM > Subject: RE: New certification > > > Well, if the board does not want to break away from INS and > separate AVA, then they may want to reconsider this certification, > because that is EXACTLY what it will do. INS will pull their > authorization of CRNI recert units and see this as adversarial. > If they want to work WITH INS, then they should work to make the > CRNI certification one, unified for all types of infusion nurses, > and expand the options for recertification as the nurses on this > list have suggested. The problem with the CRNI is that you HAVE > to get some recert units at their conference, so once every 3 yrs, > you MUST attend a conference, even if you get some from other > places, as you have stated. There is a limit to how many recert > units you can get outside of the conference. > > Chris Cavanaugh, CRNI > > > > From: Lynn Hadaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:15 AM > To: Chris Cavanaugh; 'Denise Macklin'; 'venous' > Subject: RE: New certification > > Chris, > > I must protest your impression that "the board sees it as a way to > break away from INS". I am not a board member of AVA now but was a > board member for about 5 ye ars. Those years were during the time > when we diligently worked to bring down the barriers between INS > and AVA. These organizations are *****not***** in conflict or > competition with each other. Please get that idea out of your head > and your language. We do not want to return to the old days. We > worked too hard to get past that point. > > I now state, as I always have, that there is a need for both > organizations. The membership, mission, goals, etc for each > organization are quite different. Please take the time to > understand those differences and support both or the one that is > most applicable to your practice. Lynn > > > At 6:19 PM -0400 9/21/06, Chris Cavanaugh wrote: > Denise, > I am very well aware that the AVA certification is in its infancy, > however, I think it is a good idea now to start a dialog among IV > nurses regarding t his certification, if it is wanted, needed, etc. > I realize that the board sees it as a way to break away from INS, > make money, differentiate nurses that place lines from nurses that > do infusions, etc. I am looking to start a discussion among IV > nurses, AVA and non AVA members, as to the need for this, whether > or not it is a good idea, etc. There may be some nurses who will > want both certifications, but there may also be some who feel it > is cost prohibitive, or too difficult to recertify for two, or > who feel two would be confusing to the general medical community. > For instance, there are many specialties in critical care- > neonatal, pediatric, surgical , cardiac, medical-but just one, all > encompassing CCRN, and that is a designation well known in the > medical community. Perhaps we should be considering working with > INS to make the CRNI more all encompassing¦.just some thoughts for > discussion. As I said, I am curious as to what the general IV > community thinks about the issue. > > Chris Cavanaugh, CRNI > > > > From: Denise Macklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:51 PM > To: Chris Cavanaugh; venous > Subject: Re: New certification > > The AVA certification process is in its infancy. However, the > basic exam will be offered to everyone nurses, as well as sales > reps. The advanced exam (level 2) will be offered to RN's and > MD's only. The CRNI focuses mainly on the infusion aspect of IV > therapy. The core includes medications (antibiotics and Chemo) > blood and blood components etc. The AVA certification will focus > on Vascular Access. It will be some time before the AVA > certification process will be complete. However, it will offer a > different cer tification than currently available with CRNI. I > would think that there will be nurses who hold both certifications > in the future. But for sure will choose one that best reflects > their practice needs. > > Denise Macklin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Cavanaugh > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:39 PM > Subject: New certification > > Hi gang-I was hoping to see some discussion regarding this on the > list, but have not so I thought I would get the pot stirred up¦AVA > announced at the Town Hall meeting that they are working on a new > certification, one that may have 2 levels, one for licensed (MDs > and RNs) and one for unlicensed (manufacturers, sales reps). What > do people think about this? Is it a duplication of efforts? Will > those that have a CRNI go ahead for this certification also? My > ex perience has been that so few people know what a CRNI is, that > yet another certification in infusion may confuse them. Are there > any other specialties that have more than one certification? I > could not think of any. I am interested in hearing what group has > to say. Thanks > > Chris Cavanaugh, CRNI > 3606 Molona Dr. > Orlando, FL 32837 > 407-928-9297 > > > > -- > Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RNC, CRNI > Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc. > 126 Main Street, PO Box 10 > Milner, GA 30257 > http://www.hadawayassociates.com > office 770-358-7861 > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos > from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. > ----------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Disclaimer This message, including any attachments, is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including PHI (Protected Health Information) covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender or contact the University of Louisville Health Care I.S. helpdesk at 502.562.3637 to report an inadvertently received message. ----------------------------------------------------- <Heather Nichols.vcf>