DNP required soon?

I agree. CRNA's hold advanced degrees that are academically and clinically challenging to attain. If the DNP or DNAP is offered to me after I get my MSN for CRNA, then I'll take it. I think that patients are bound to get educated to the fact that nurses' education can be advanced enough to be doctors of nursing. For the issue of misrepresentation, a nurse with a clinical doctorate should be called 'doctor' in the clinical setting. However, it should be followed by a short explanation, or longer one if the patient looks at you with a confused face. "Hello, I'm Dr. Jones, I will be your nurse anesthetist providing your anesthesia during your surgery." It's the same as saying "I'm Dr. Smith, I'm a dentist here to look at your tooth." I think the title automatically tells the patient that you didn't just get your associate degree RN and start working for an MD in the anesthesia dept. If I were a patient, I'd feel more comfortable with a doctorally prepared anesthesia provider, whether that provider were a nurse or an MD. It also enables us to convey to patients, albeit one at a time, that nursing isn't limited to the ADN at the bedside of a med-surg ward.

i'm sorry. i don't agree. i think this will only confuse patients further. many doctorally prepared nurses present themselves as "name", CRNA. adequate and not confusing (anymore than them thinking you are a doctor already just because you are part of anesthesia). there is lack of education and lack of knowing within the public about nurses in the advanced role, especially anesthesia. i just don't think the public is ready to be a bit more confused with the doctor thing.

Because we underestimate the public we serve with this missed opportunity to educate them, your contention is "just not tell them?" My goodness, how do you think they will understand the complexities of the anesthesia you're giving them (or the post-op instructions, or about the procedure they're having, or about their diabetes, etc. etc. etc.)? Do you just not tell them that?

i don't think that just before a procedure is the time to tell them/confuse them. i do agree that the public we serve should be educated, just not at that time.
and no, i don't go into the complexities of my anesthesia. they won't understand the "complexities" as you so put it, and just don't need to. the more you tell the more they forget and the more they worry. i've seen it, and have adapted to that. as for the basics? absolutely.

...Not to, but I'm gonna... Senator Semantics has informed me that 'complexities' is probably the wrong word choice. I agree. Sorry. When you explain the basics, and they become confused (as inevitably happens now and again), how do you compensate or adjust your teaching? Give up? Nope. People don't get stuff sometimes, but they can. The point is this: a missed opportunity to teach someone is a missed opportunity. Period. Without getting into the politics, education curricula, etc., one can simply identify themselves appropriately without bending or breaking the truth, or even without confusing the layest of laypeople. When you say "at that time," you are implying that you are talking to them the first time on the table or in a crunch. No, that's probably not an appropriate time to say Dr. CRNA. There are appropriate missed opportunities to bolster our quest to end the nurse = trade school/handmaiden mentality. Seen the article that nursing is the highest paid profession that does not require college education? I rest my case.

... Senator Semantics has informed me that 'complexities' is probably the wrong word choice. ........

i don't disagree with your argument. i just don't agree with the issue at hand. my choice, as yours is yours.
so yea, the case is rested.
as for the article, i hope it's a rhetorical question.

Professor Hayakawa would be pleased to be remembered..........

d