[anjelica]

This was an eye-opening read. Thank you for posting and spreading awareness. Several topics stood out to me, most notably racism showing up in policies. Some of the best intentions can have harmful consequences. Requiring entry-level nurses to have a bachelor’s degree sounds innovative. However, this places minorities at a disadvantage. Many entry-level nurses have associate degrees and later acquire their bachelor’s. With the rise in Magnet-status hospitals, many ADNs are being excluded from inpatient care and other career-building opportunities. On the surface, these hospitals have well-educated staff, but at the expense of cultural inclusivity.
These policies often have a domino effect on other work-related policies, such as professional appearance and what is considered acceptable. Many hospitals require you to cover visible tattoos at work. In Eurocentric cultures, tattoos are a means of expression and individualization but don’t often carry spiritual or religious significance. However, a Moko or facial tattoo carries significant cultural and spiritual meaning in the Polynesian and Pacific Islander communities and represents coming of age and ancestral history. These policies aren’t limited to staff but affect the care we provide for our patients. My department recently allowed visible tattoos and specific body piercings to be worn at work. This opened a dialogue about skin and hair care products and how our hospital has a limited variety of patient toiletries. This led to our department stocking shampoo and conditioner catered to curly hair and providing new education on using them. Without the personal stories of my coworkers, we would have remained ignorant of our shortcomings and continued to underserve our patients. Inclusivity affects us all and we must me mindful of those being excluded.

[anjelica]

Hi Susan,
I’m currently a DNP student in California. After reading both Florida HB 583 and California AB 765, the Wood bill is short-sighted and doesn’t provide the clarification it intends. In the Florida HB 583 Bill, paragraph G addresses non-physicians with a doctoral degree. It provides a new abbreviation of “D.” instead of “Dr.” but allows the use of “Doctor” if their credentialing and specification are clearly denoted. This is a better compromise than excluding a doctoral degree from the title altogether. As healthcare professionals, we should be clear about our titles and credentials. Although I believe doctoral graduates should have unrestricted use of the title “Doctor”, I can understand how patients and people unfamiliar with healthcare can be confused. This bill restricts the term “physician” to doctors of medicine, which I feel is appropriate. Furthermore, it provides restrictions on who may call themselves “RN”, “LVN”, and other healthcare professional titles.
California’s AB 765 doesn’t address doctoral graduates whatsoever. It simply states that you must be a physician or surgeon to use the title. This is short-sighted for two reasons. First, as of 2025, a DNP will become the entry-level degree for all NP. Henceforth, as they start to open their own practices, they would be unable to use their “doctor” title in any form of advertisement, business card, ect without being penalized. Under this law, simply writing “Doctor of nursing practice” would be a misdemeanor offense and could potentially remove much-needed providers from the workforce. Secondly, the inspiration for this bill is based on patient survey data, stating, “ According to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising surveys, 79 percent of patient respondents would support legislation in their state to require all health care advertising materials to clearly designate the level of education, skills, and training of all health care professionals promoting their services”. However, this bill doesn’t prompt clarification of education or credentialing whatsoever but only restricts the use of one title. This is misleading for the general public, leading them to believe this bill provides transparency for all healthcare providers. California’s AB 765 would only encourage more unnecessary healthcare legislation. It would be more appropriate to adopt legislation in the fashion of Florida’s HB 583 and require education and license designation for all healthcare professionals.

[Author]

Posts