Quote from ERNP
TraumaRUs.. that is very interesting too. I didn't know that a CNS could function exactly as an NP does. I wonder why then we need 2 separate titles?
Many CNS's don't want to focus on the "medical" management of the patient, write prescriptions, etc. Many CNS programs don't include those functions and I'm not sure if all states even allow that.
Master's programs can't include everything. If you have a program that includes medical management, etc. then there won't be time to include the indepth study of other aspects of the CNS role, such as traditional nursing functions, staff development, program development, management, research, etc.
Some people want more of a Nurse Practitioner role and some people want their expertise to be in those other areas. That's why the 2 different paths (NP and CNS) were developed in the first place. I can understand that some people want a combined role, but I can only support that if both the CNS and the NP aspects are given equal time and focus within the educational program. Combined educational programs and blended roles have been tried -- and have been successful sometimes. However, there have also been some problems and issues with combining the 2 roles. They are just fundamentally different in focus at their foundation -- the NP designed more to provide "physician extender care" and the CNS developmed for supporting and enhancing traditional nursing practice. Those are both fine things, but they are not the same thing.