Task force to look at structure, purpose of Federation The June meeting of the Federation of Spe- cialty Nursing Organizations and ANA (Ameri- can Nurses’ Association) provided an oppor- tunity for nursing leaders, some of them newly elected, to discuss some current issues in nursing and some particular problems facing individual specialty organizations.

The Federation met in Anaheim June 23 and 24, just a week after the ANA Convention in Honolulu. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) was the host or- ganization. AACN President Carolyn Ehrlich, RN, presided.

The Federation continues to be concerned about its structure and purpose. Originally conceived as a forum for exchange of informa- tion, the Federation has spent much time de- liberating whether its loosely structured or- ganization is appropriate. At its last meeting it had appointed three organizations, the Ameri- can Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA), AACN, and the Emergency Depart- ment Nurses Association (EDNA), to study the Federation’s guidelines. The organizations were unable to meet because of lack of finan- cial resources. One organization, EDNA, con- solidated the guidelines, but no changes had been proposed.

Still believing that there was a need to look at its organization, the Federation voted to form a task force. But the Federation was thwarted by lack of funds when it tried to work out some way for the task force to meet. It was suggested that each organization contribute

a Federation report

$1 00, but representatives stated they could not commit their organizations to any financial contributions.

Unable to work out any arrangement for a task force to meet, the Federation decided to let the three organizations continue their work by mail, looking at the Federation’s purpose, structure, and means of financial support. In the discussion, questions were raised about the specialty focus of the Federation, the em- phasis on clinical practice, and the possibility of changing the name to indicate more general representation of nursing. These will be studied by the group, which was directed to present pros and cons for its recom- mendations.

A discussion of where to hold the next two meetings of the Federation raised the issue of the economic boycott of states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Two invitations were from Chicago-based or- ganizations, and Illinois had just again voted down the ERA. Several nursing organizations, including ANA, have voted not to hold meet- ings in states that have not ratified the ERA.

Although one representative suggested the Federation take a stand in support of the ERA, there was little enthusiasm for such action. The economic boycott raises serious problems for some organizations, including AORN, which has convention contracts for many years in advance and is limited to a few cities with suffi- cient facilities for its meetings. Skirting the ERA issue, the Federation accepted the invita- tion of the ANA Division on Medical-Surgical Nursing Practice to meet in Kansas City, Kan, in January 1979 and the invitation of the Nurses Association of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (NAACOG) to meet in Chicago in June 1979. The ANA-

d+ 336 AORN Journal, August 1978, Vol28, No 2

sponsored meeting will be in Kansas rather than Missouri, which has not approved the ERA. Because of this, ANA has also moved the 1981 International Council of Nurdes meet- ing from Kansas City, Mo, to Los Angeles. The Division on Medical-Surgical Nursing Practice plans to hold a meeting prior to the next Fed- eration with the specialty organizations with which it has a liaison relationship. AORN has offered to host the Federation in June 1980.

Discussing some of the problems specialty organizations have incurred with the mechanism for approval of continuing educa- tion offerings established by the ANA National Accreditation Board (NAB), AACN questioned restrictions on approving offerings of consti- tuents. According to the ANA accrediting mechanism, an accredited organization such as AACN or AORN can approve offerings of its constituents, which include chapters and other subdivisions, but not individual members. Only one-third of AACN members are under a chap- ter structure. Other organizations found re- strictions on approval of physician-sponsored or industry-sponsored offerings restrictive. Al- though cosponsoring is possible, the sponsor- ing agency must have complete control over the offerings, a restriction not acceptable to most physician groups. Former NAB chairman Clara Donahoo, RN, pointed out that physi- cians and industry can apply for accreditation through a different track. AORN Executive Di- rector Jerty Peers, RN, supported the sepa- rate industry accreditation, stating that this “kept it a little more pure” and avoided the question of favoritism.

Two organizations reported on particular problems they faced. AORN’s President Jean Davis, RN, told Federation members that the US Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare was planning to publish in the Federal Register proposed regulations for Medicare Conditions of Participation that state either a registered nurse or technician can scrub or circulate for surgical procedures. (See “Head- quarters report,’’ page 197.) Discussing the implications, Davis said, “This may mean that in a large number of hospitals in this country, the bylaws or administration of the hospital may determine that there need not be an RN in the OR during an operative procedure.” She called this “a critical issue with tremendous impact on our practice.” Executive Director

Peers asked Federation members to respond to the regulations during the 90-day comment period that will follow their publication. Federa- tion members indicated strong support of AORN.

Reporting on the relationship with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), AANA President Ronald Caulk, CRNA, said that it was more positive. In the past, ASA has challenged AANA’s role as the accrediting body for nurse anesthesia programs and has moved to form commissions on credentialing of nurse anesthetists and accreditation of nurse anesthesia programs. The ASA charged that the AANA councils on accreditation and certification were not autonomous because of bylaws ratification rights by the board of direc- tors. ASA was also concerned that AANA membership and certification are tied together. Certification has been automatically granted when dues are paid. Caulk explained pro- posed restructuring of the three AANA coun- cils on accreditation, certification, and recer- tification. Certification will be granted by the Council on Certification to graduates of ap- proved nurse anesthesia programs who have met criteria and successfully passed a qualify- ing examination. Recertification under a sepa- rate council will be based on continuing educa- tion. The AANA Board has proposed that its ratification rights be deleted from the bylaws.

Although ASA has gone ahead with forma- tion of its commissions, it is curtailing activities until AANA members have an opportunity to accept or reject the restructuring of the coun- cils at the association’s annual meeting.

At its January meeting, the Federation de- cided to spend a half day discussing a critical issue in nursing. On Saturday morning, the Federation heard a presentation on entry into practice by Lorene Fischer, RN, chairman of the ANA Task Force on Entry into Professional Practice. She discussed the background of the four resolutions on entry into practice ap- proved at the ANA Convention. A report of her presentation and Federation discussion will be included in the September Journal with the ANA Convention report.

Elinor S Schrader Editor

34 0 AORN Journal, August 1978, Vol28, No 2