Unifying the Advanced Practice Roles

SHGR, MSN, RN, CNS · Mar 4, 2014

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.

matthewandrew, NP · Mar 4, 2014

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.[/quote']
Thank 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.
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.

lhflanurseNP, APRN · Mar 4, 2014

Great idea...would give us a more unified front. MDs and DOs have one title, then their specialty if they have one.

elkpark · Mar 4, 2014

Personally, I don't like it. CNSs are being marginalized and discounted enough already, IMO. If I wanted to be an NP, I would have gone to school to become an NP.

futureeastcoastNP · Mar 4, 2014

I 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.

matthewandrew, NP · Mar 4, 2014

How about having all advanced practice nurses utilize the title APRN? Would that be something you would support?

futureeastcoastNP · Mar 4, 2014

How about having all advanced practice nurses utilize the title APRN? Would that be something you would support?

the 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.

SamRNmedic · Mar 4, 2014

APRN 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.

Samantha, RN

LPN 2001, Medic 2005, ADN 2011, BSN graduation is May 3, 2014!!!

Sent from my iPhone using allnurses

PatMac10,RN, RN · Mar 4, 2014

What 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.com

futureeastcoastNP · Mar 4, 2014

What 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. Same thing with Peds.
Sent from my iPhone using allnurses.com

Agreed, but considering how few clinal hours programs already have, they'd have to double the clinical hours to prepare students for both inpatient and outpatient. Some FNP programs have only 600 hours or so as it is. I can't imagine if they further divided this and only had 300 outpatient and 300 inpatient.

PatMac10,RN, RN · Mar 4, 2014

Agreed but considering how few clinal hours programs already have, they'd have to double the clinical hours to prepare students for both inpatient and outpatient. Some FNP programs have only 600 hours or so as it is. I can't imagine if they further divided this and only had 300 outpatient and 300 inpatient.[/quote']
True. I think that could be addressed though. If it caused in increase in the required minimal clinical hours for those particular programs that wouldn't be a bad thing. There are clinical principles that are applicative in both the inpatient and outpatient setting (especially when it comes to hospital medicine and patient on a general medical surgical unit).
Many FNP programs mention in there program descriptions that students will learn to treat acute and chronic health issues, of course I know that doesn't mean you'll learn how to manage an IABP or Vent pt, but the basic foundations to treat people with acute issues seems to be weaved into their education already.
Sent from my iPhone using allnurses.com