Unifying the Advanced Practice Roles
- 0Although the APRN roles are distinct in their own right, this shouldn't mean that Advanced Practice should be fragmented as well. I want to suggest why not rename all the APRN roles, CRNA, NP, CNM and CNS into one singular term, Nurse Practitioner.
CRNA = Anesthetic NP
CNM = Obstetric NP
CNS = Clinical Specialist NP
NP = (Insert Specialty) NP
NP is already very well known to the public. I think this would not only lessen confusion but improve the public image of Advanced Nursing. It would also unify all the roles, just like every other health profession. Why keep the alphabet soup in our profession (eg: RN BSN MSN CRNA CNM CNS DNP ETC ETC ETC)?
Matthew Andrew, NP
Another BOLD idea for our profession... thoughts?
- 1,870 Visits
- 0Mar 4 by SHGRHaving a unifying title is a good idea. Calling all APRNs NPs is not a good idea. How about APRN?
APRNs in my state have brought this forward, a movement started here by NMs and the state nurse's association is working on the draft legislation. See what is going on in your state and get involved- write letters to your elected officials, etc.
The language we use is important. A few years ago nobody knew what NPs were either. If you have the Hamric text (Advanced Practice Nursing: an integrative approach) take a look at what is written about the titles and not letting yourself be invisible.
- 0Quote from SHGRThank you for your response! I live in California and I'm not quite sure if there is a push for that here. But I know in some states the law requires the use of the title APRN. Although I'm not the biggest fan (seems kinda long) I would support a move like that.Having a unifying title is a good idea. Calling all APRNs NPs is not a good idea. How about APRN? APRNs in my state have brought this forward, a movement started here by NMs and the state nurse's association is working on the draft legislation. See what is going on in your state and get involved- write letters to your elected officials, etc. The language we use is important. A few years ago nobody knew what NPs were either. If you have the Hamric text (Advanced Practice Nursing: an integrative approach) take a look at what is written about the titles and not letting yourself be invisible.
What I am totally against is adding Certified to NP for the sake of having all APRNs have "C" in the front. I know this subject isn't the biggest priority for our profession but it makes an interesting topic of discussion among RNs and APRNs.
- 0Mar 4 by futureeastcoastNPI don't like it either. These are distinct professions and while all nurses it's unfair to call everyone an NP. All of these professions have long, rich histories, especially the midwife and the nurse anesthetist. Upholding their name is an honor to all of those who have fought to give them the scope and rights they enjoy today, and it really shouldn't be changed.
Second, it would be confusing. Nurse practitioners are supposed to be able to write prescriptions, yet CRNAs cannot. CNS cannot diagnose or write prescriptions in many states either. Calling them all NPs would be even more confusing and would lead to "Are you the kind of NP that can write prescriptions??" Physicians can all have the same title because no matter what the specialty, they were all trained the same and can all diagnose, order, and write prescriptions. That is not the case for the APRN roles. It makes no sense to give them the same name.
I agree the alphabet soup is ridiculous and tacky but changing the name won't help that. How NPs put their name on their card is up to them, I intend to only write FNP.
- 0Mar 4 by futureeastcoastNPQuote from matthewandrewthe public is finally catching on to the name Nurse practitioner, I think it would be a shame to reverse all of that hard work and start over with a new name.How about having all advanced practice nurses utilize the title APRN? Would that be something you would support?
- 1Mar 4 by SamRNmedicAPRN is a broad term to use for any RN with an advanced degree. A Nurse Practitioner IS an APRN. A clinical nurse specialist IS an APRN. A Nurse Anesthetist IS an APRN. But with differing roles, you need to specify the type of APRN. So, if you say "Mike Jones, APRN," someone will still be thinking "well what kind?" So, you may as well just say, "Mike Jones, FNP.
LPN 2001, Medic 2005, ADN 2011, BSN graduation is May 3, 2014!!!
Sent from my iPhone using allnurses
- 1Mar 4 by PatMac10,RNWhat I think is fragmented is the required separate education and certification for acute and primary care populations.
I guess what in trying to say is that it seems that if one want to treat solely adults, then why shouldn't their training prepare them to treat people in an Acute and Primary care setting? To me it seems like an excessive division of training. Why not be trained in a acute and primary and then leave it up to the practitioner where and how they want to practice and use their education? I just can't grasp the concept of someone being an primary care ANP and having to go back to school to get licensed as a ACNP (because some hospitals are requiring this, more so with hiring new people, though) in order to work in an inpatient or acute care setting..... It seems like time is wasted.
Now I know a few ANPs and PNPs who work as inpatient NPs and they never has issues. I don't think they are Ill prepared by any means, I just think it's ridiculous that things are so divided. Same thing with Peds. Why are there three different Pediatric nurse practitiner options???PNP, PACNP, and NNP?????
Just like Psych NP certification and the child and adult certification exams being retired. They are now moving to a model where every student that's tests will be certified to treat all ages, and in various settings. Why can't the other NP specializes follow that precedent??? Sent from my iPhone using allnurses.comLast edit by PatMac10,RN on Mar 4