Nurses, physicians weigh in on new doctoral nurse degree - page 19
New Degree Creates Doctor Nurses-And Confusion All Things Considered, February 22, 2009 No one wants to badmouth Florence Nightingale, but a new degree for nurses is causing bad blood between... Read More
1Oct 17, '09 by ivanh3Quote from lamazeteacherThank you. The doctorate of nursing practice is a professional doctorate that was originally designed to augment advanced practice nurses. Or should I say clinical advanced practice nurses e.g. family nurse practitioner, pediatric NP, etc. This has changed somewhat. Now advanced practice has been expanded to also cover leadership and education. There are DNP programs for NPs, leader/admin, and educators. The idea is to have this program mandatory by the year 2015. At that point schools would offer BSN to DNP programs only, and the masters degree would be eliminated. As it stands now, most DNP programs are about 2 years (post master's), offer additional clinical time, and additional training in non clinical areas like research, etc. I am not sure what the non clinical DNP programs consist of.Ivan, I would have put dozens more thanks/kudos there, if that was permitted!
You've just updated a seriously "out of the academic loop" septagenarian...... Now I realize why this thread happened. Before, I thought it was a doctoral degree like any other, but now through your post, I realise that this is a 2nd one foir the same profession -
So the actual problem with acceptance of the DNP, refers to curricula of that v PhD in Nursing, eh? (Had to get my Canadian in.) MDs don't usually (I won't say typically any more) have any idea what the curriculum has been for any advanced degrees for nurses. They just don't want us passing them in knowledge, possibly (if they have an itch about the DNP).
So there are two areas of debate. One, do we need a DNP? There is room for debate here. I do see valid thought processes for and against a(nother) professional doctorate for nursing. As stated before, I am not for it. I file it under "duplication of services" although I am sure I am oversimplifying that. Two, there has been some grumbling by medical groups representing physicians (and I am sure some individual physicians as well) about the posibiltiy of workplace confusion regarding the title "doctor". I think it is silly to even entertain them. I am honestly not sure what physicians understand about the differences between a DNP and PhD in terms of content, but in terms of title, they should probably leave this one alone.
To me the real issue is the discussion about the essence of the DNP itself. I can't say I think it is a waste of time (any addition of knowledge is good), but does it add enough to warrant the additional barrier it raises to become a nurse practitioner? Considering the shortage of primary care providers that is only expected to get worse and the current financial state we are in I say it does not.
IvanLast edit by ivanh3 on Oct 17, '09
1Oct 17, '09 by lamazeteacher".......To me the real issue is the discussion about the essence of the DNP itself. I can't say I think it is a waste of time (any addition of knowledge is good), but ..........does it add enough to warrant the additional barrier it raises to become a nurse practitioner? Considering the shortage of primary care providers that is only expected to get worse and the current financial state we are in I say it does not." quote from Ivan's post #234
As most things seem to end up being decided by the financial impact of any change, it appears that this will go that way, too. Given our President's leaning toward more accessible health care and education, it doesn't seem as far fetched as it otherwise might be, however. (Fingers crossed.)Last edit by lamazeteacher on Oct 17, '09 : Reason: punctuation correction
0Nov 22, '11 by piccnrseWhether this "doctor" is pro or con DNP, here we come. I appreciate and respect genuine intelligence and competency. The physician making this statement is missing one or both of these attributes and is apparently insecure in his role. He and others like him may have an issue with trying to compete with competent healthcare providers vying for the same patient population. whatever the case, we cannot be discouraged or enraged by this type of condescension. Rather, we need to help form DNP programs to pull away from traditional nursing classes, such as, theory, family/community, and learning how to deal with patients from many nationalities. This is America, we get much of this in grade school. Cover it in the ADN program but leave it for electives if wanted in BS, MS and DNP work. We need to be putting out quality primary care providers, with focus on clinical management of disease processes - not writing papers in some theory class. We each have our own theory, let us put that theory to work in the clinical setting! Then we can better meet the demands imposed upon us with confidence, having a broad clinical background from which to draw from. Medical doctors get residency programs - DNPs get what? an in service, an orientation? No wonder we are met with such resistance maybe we have approached an area WE are not quite ready for as a whole.
Thanks for letting me vent a little.
0Nov 25, '11 by LPN2RN2BSN2MSNIf a patient were on an airplane having an acute MI then their outcome would likely be better if there were a master or doctoral prepared cardiac or ER NP to respond, as compared to having a urologist or GYN stand up and say, "I'm a DOCTOR." The roles of nurses have and will continue to expand, no matter how much the American Medical Association protests. It is an immutable fact that one cannot stop the tide from rolling up on the shore, and in the healthcare arena nurses are that tide!