Doctoral degree to become an NP???

Specialties Doctoral

Published

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) is calling for the requirement of doctorate in nursing for advanced practice nurses, such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse anesthetists. This new degree will be called a Doctor of Nursing Practice and, if the AACN has its way, will become the entry level for advanced nursing practice.

AACN Position Statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing

That's why nursing remains the most trusted profession in the country and why physicians are further down on the respect list--somewhere between high school teachers and telemarketers.

While I respect nursing and the field, I respect physicians WAY more than NPs. A physician puts their entire life on hold to attend medical school for 4 years while the NP can go to school online. A physician gets paid at the poverty level to work like dogs for 3-8 years to learn how to perform their job while a NP just hops right into work earning the big bucks. I have a great amount of respect for physicians and, despite having APNs in the family, will always see a physician. You simply cannot compare the education and knowledge base.

Physician >>>> NP/PA >>>>> RN >>>>> STNA/PSA

If people can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen! This is a debate about the neccessity of a "doctoral" degree to work in advance practice. Just because myself and others disagree with your rose colored outlook on NPs doesn't mean that nursing is being "slammed". Its a shame that some take this a little too personal, because these debates or discussions are healthy for our practice.

Really? I thought this was a nursing forum not a bash nursing forum. You have nothing positive to say about nursing so why are you on this board?

Who needs this?

I agree with Tammy--

I think it time to find a forum where I can get support and a healthy exchange of ideas without the negativity.

Specializes in ER; CCT.
A physician gets paid at the poverty level to work like dogs for 3-8 years to learn how to perform their job while a NP just hops right into work earning the big bucks.

Which country is this? I want to move there so I can "hop right in" and earn the "big bucks."

Specializes in ER; CCT.
I think it time to find a forum where I can get support and a healthy exchange of ideas without the negativity.

I'd do the same but there needs to be a few advocates for nursing on a nursing site.

Which country is this? I want to move there so I can "hop right in" and earn the "big bucks."

When a NP graduates and becomes licensed, he or she can start working right away making pretty good money. Physicians spend 3-8 years working 80 hours a week for $40k a year. What NP route makes you gravel at the poverty level for a few years after graduation to allow you to privledge of earning "the big bucks?" None that I know of. Most NPs graduate, become licensed, and start making $70k+ a yr.

I'd do the same but there needs to be a few advocates for nursing on a nursing site.

Maybe that's something that needs to be discussed. Why are most nurses even against nursing?

in regards to the dnp only being a suggestion, i have a concern as to where you have been getting your information. a national dnp organization sent the following recently.

march 29, 2010

interesting data: as of fall 2009, for those programs which prepare graduates for practice as an advanced practice registered nurse, 219 institutions have dnp programs either operating or in planning. as of september 2009, there were 120 dnp programs enrolling students at schools of nursing nationwide (36 states plus the district of columbia), and an additional 99 dnp programs are under development.

from 2008 to 2009, the number of students enrolled in dnp programs increased from 3,406 to 5,165. during that same period, the number of dnp graduates nearly doubled from 360 to 660 (personal communication from drs. fay raines, president, and geraldine "polly" bednash, ceo and executive director, american association of colleges of nursing, february 18, 2010).

take home message: the number of dnp graduates will likely double each year from 660 graduates in 2009 to about 1,300 new dnps in 2010; and 2,600 in 2011 and a conservative estimate of 5,200 dnp graduates in 2012. by the end of 2012 over 10,000 dnp graduates are expected to be in practice. it's difficult to predict how many dnps will be in practice by the end of 2015. one estimate is that close to 50,000 practice doctorate graduates will be in the work force.

these compelling numbers say that dnps are poised and ready to make a difference in health care delivery. leadership and innovation in practice will be the hallmark of dnp practice. http://www.doctorsofnursingpractice.org/

yes, many schools are converting their msn programs to dnp programs and there will be many more dnp graduates "out there," but that's very different from the dnp being a requirement for licensure. so for, that remains a proposal by a few academic nursing organizations -- afaik, no state is close to making it mandatory. i, personally, doubt v. much that they will make a noticeable difference in practice compared to the skilled, competent msn-prepared advance practice nurses already practicing successfully.

Almost forgot. I totally agree.

Physicians are in NO way, shape or form equal to nurses.

That's why nursing remains the most trusted profession in the country and why physicians are further down on the respect list--somewhere between high school teachers and telemarketers.

Good argument. Clearly, by being ranked a few spots higher than physicians in the trust scale, you are equivalent/superior to physicians in terms of medical training/knowledge. It makes complete logical sense.

I don't know if I find it funny or concerning that every time a valid concern is made on these forums (regarding, for example, the lack of clinically useful science courses or adequate amount of clinical training in the NP/DNP curricula) your response is to take it as a personal attack and respond as such or to run away from the discussion by evoking the "nurse-hater" term. You repeatedly fail to address concerns that are brought up even by other nurses and continue the march toward independence. Scary!

Specializes in CT ICU, OR, Orthopedic.

I am in a BSN to DNP program. My focus is acute care and critical care. I must admit that some of the arguments presented here are, IMO, valid. I understand the desire to make the DNP expert nurses, and with this comes more theory and research classes, I even understand the desire for health policy and leadership. However, I would LOVE more actual CLINICALLY based classes. I think it would be very beneficial to have another, more detailed, pharmacology class, I would love another pathophysiology class. I think that the DNP should require an FNP focus, then specialization in a specific area. This would allow for more clinical time and classes and more well rounded NP.

With that being said, I find it offensive when people refer to our program as "soft", or, "fluffy", or, "watered down". I PROMISE that these classes are far from easy. They have the rigor of a doctoral program. It is one thing to state that you do not feel that the classes are necessary, but it is insulting when you state that they are easy. Especially if you aren't in the program.

As far as NP/DNP vs MD/DO...That is like comparing apples to oranges. There are good NPs and bad one's just as there are bad physicians and good ones. I am sure there are great NPs, that can out preform some physicians, but our programs were never designed to create "mini docs". We are NURSES. We are trained in a totally different theoretical model and focus.

OK, tear me apart for this. I'm ready!

yes, many schools are converting their msn programs to dnp programs and there will be many more dnp graduates "out there," but that's very different from the dnp being a requirement for licensure. so for, that remains a proposal by a few academic nursing organizations -- afaik, no state is close to making it mandatory. i, personally, doubt v. much that they will make a noticeable difference in practice compared to the skilled, competent msn-prepared advance practice nurses already practicing successfully.

i agree, the dnp will not be a requirement for awhile. i do know that the ancc and aanp are considering the impact of the dnp on certification exams. i know that nonpf and ccne are recommending the dnp as the minimum degree by 2015. all of these organizations have been reviewing the impact. strong possibility that the np students starting a np program in 2015 will be required to have the dnp to be eligible for a certification exam form ancc or aanp.

nps had this exact same discussion back in the early 90s when the transition to the masters' requirement occurred. we heard, there is no difference between masters and non-masters prepared nps. in fact, almost all the same arguments being made now about the dnp were made about the masters.

Specializes in Advanced Practice, surgery.
i agree, the dnp will not be a requirement for awhile. i do know that the ancc and aanp are considering the impact of the dnp on certification exams. i know that nonpf and ccne are recommending the dnp as the minimum degree by 2015. all of these organizations have been reviewing the impact. strong possibility that the np students starting a np program in 2015 will be required to have the dnp to be eligible for a certification exam form ancc or aanp.

nps had this exact same discussion back in the early 90s when the transition to the masters' requirement occurred. we heard, there is no difference between masters and non-masters prepared nps. in fact, almost all the same arguments being made now about the dnp were made about the masters.

i have to be honest i watch the development of advanced practice in the us with a great deal of interest as the uk, although quite a way behind has mirrored the development.

at the moment here there is no minimum qualification to work as a nurse practitioner and that is changing, there are discussions as to if degree level or masters level would be the more appropriate and the general consensus is leaning towards the masters level course. the difference between degree and masters courses is said to be the diagnostic level achieved by the masters level practitioner, which is said to be less so than on a bsc course. i've looked at both curriculum and to be honest can't really see the difference except in the marking where the masters have to achieve higher academic grades.

i wonder if the uk will follow suit in a few years and aim towards dnp's and have to be honest it worries me. i am coming to the end of my masters program and feel that i have done enough. i work in a very specialised field, i know my speciality and if i need to know more or my knowledge is not enough then i have extremely well trained and experienced medical colleagues who can advise and support me.

I am in a BSN to DNP program. My focus is acute care and critical care. I must admit that some of the arguments presented here are, IMO, valid. I understand the desire to make the DNP expert nurses, and with this comes more theory and research classes, I even understand the desire for health policy and leadership. However, I would LOVE more actual CLINICALLY based classes. I think it would be very beneficial to have another, more detailed, pharmacology class, I would love another pathophysiology class. I think that the DNP should require an FNP focus, then specialization in a specific area. This would allow for more clinical time and classes and more well rounded NP.

With that being said, I find it offensive when people refer to our program as "soft", or, "fluffy", or, "watered down". I PROMISE that these classes are far from easy. They have the rigor of a doctoral program. It is one thing to state that you do not feel that the classes are necessary, but it is insulting when you state that they are easy. Especially if you aren't in the program.

I think the term "fluff" was not used to connote easy. It was used to show that these courses just pad the credit hours, so that the DNP can be in the ballpark (by number of credits) of other non-thesis doctorates. So instead of adding clinical courses, they add stuff to fluff up or pad the credit hours.

Unlike those non-thesis doctorates (MD/DO, DPT, DMD/DDS, PharmD) whose courses are completely centered around the subject matter that they will practice, the DNP has courses well outside of the scope of the clinical degree (ie the MPH courses instead of clinical courses). This really would be a non-issue if the nursing leadership wasn't fighting tooth and nail for equal rights. Equal rights is fine if there is equal training. That is why DOs have gained equal rights over the last 50 years. However, just adding clinically irrelevant courses so that you can call yourself doctor is irresponsible and disingenuous. Now I know no one on this board added these courses to the DNP, but to act like there is not a problem here and not to push for a stronger clinical degree is just as bad. I applaud you all who do want more clinical courses.

Now, in terms of those research and statistics courses being just as hard as the clinical ones... pleeeeease. While they may not be easy, they are far from as hard as the clinical ones, at least in my experience. For full disclosure, I have one of those pesky graduate degrees in biochemistry as well, so let's not act like I don't know about research/statistics courses.

If you combine a masters in Biochemistry and an MPH you do not get a PhD in biochemistry. That is what the DNP is trying to do- adding a masters degree in nursing to part of an MPH and acting like you come out on the other side with a clinical doctorate. So people are who are raising concerns are not bashing nurses, or DNPs or anything of the sort. They are however raising concerns over people who act like nothing is wrong- especially when those same people are fighting so rabidly to have more and more responsibility.

+ Add a Comment