[elkpark]

Originally Posted by noneil680

I thought that you had to be an RN for 2 years before you can start an actual NP program, have I been misinformed?

Different schools have different requirements. Since the direct-entry programs have been springing up like mushrooms after a spring rain, obviously TPTB in nursing have decided that no experience whatsoever is required to become an NP ... However, some (traditional, non-direct-entry) programs do require (a minimum of) two years of RN experience to apply. Others require less experience, or none at all. Each individual school is free to set its own standards.

[LeapofFaith]

Is experience as an RN necc to become a competent NP?
I don't have a definitive answer, but here is my line of thinking...
to become a PA, you don not have to have any prior health care experience. In fact I know 3 people off the tip of my head who are PAs that went to a university took the pre -reqs and went straight to PA school, w/o finishing a bachelors degree. All found jobs before they graduated.
Why are nurses held to a different standard?

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by LeapofFaith

Is experience as an RN necc to become a competent NP?
I don't have a definitive answer, but here is my line of thinking...
to become a PA, you don not have to have any prior health care experience. In fact I know 3 people off the tip of my head who are PAs that went to a university took the pre -reqs and went straight to PA school, w/o finishing a bachelors degree. All found jobs before they graduated.
Why are nurses held to a different standard?

I wouldn't say that nurses are held to a different standard. It just reflects the unique development of the NP role and NP education. There's no great master plan about how NPs came into being; it's a continuing work in progress. Maybe PA students *should* be required to have more experience. Maybe NP students *should* be allowed to enter programs without any previous experience. More important is whether or not the programs effectively educate their students for their future roles. I've gotten the impression that much of clinical nursing education at various levels tends to be "teach yourself" and "sink or swim" as opposed to a step by step educational process. From what I've heard about PA programs, they seem, in general, more clearly organized and consistent in their content, in providing an adequate DEPTH of education in medical knowledge (which nursing education can *sometimes* be rather shallow in) and in preparing students to FUNCTION in their future roles.

Most NPs began as experienced RNs who - from experience and not specifically from their nursing education - came to a level of expertise such that they could essentially take on some of the roles of the MD. If a student CAN train directly as an NP, then NP education needs to take that into account. However, if RN experience isn't needed, then NP education needn't include the complete RN curriculum, which is primarily focused on inpatient bedside nursing care. If that's not the role the student is going to play, why bother? But if the NP doesn't NEED nursing experience or RN education then what part of *nursing* are they bringing to the table as an NP? Direct entry NP programs would have to teach *all* necessary medical content (to be able to diagnose and treat) as well as including nursing content (the more holistic angle). In that case, shouldn't NP training be LONGER than PA training, at least for those without previous nursing experience?

[LeapofFaith]

well said JJJoy, I have to admit that I posted my comment after reading the first couple of pages of this thread. After doing more reading I think I have a better understanding of both sides.
Thanks

[morganvibes]

I am in an acellerated NP program and have no previous nursing experience.
I know a lot more now about the whole situation then I did last year when I was reading all these posts and trying to figure it out.

I would say now that there needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds for the whole mid-level practitioner designation.
As someone with no intention of working as a bedside RN , I feel that it is plain silly to be learning about bed-making and hanging IV's and learning how to designate to a care partner etc. Not because it is beneath me, but because it is taking time away from learning skills I WILL be needing and using as an NP. The point is, the time could be used to have classes on what I WILL be doing instead of doing this back door way of becoming a mid level provider.

Just because the mid level title "Nurse practitioner" has the word nurse in it, does it have to forever mean that you started out as a nurse? I really think it needs to become it's own job with its own training.(or even give it another name ML practitioner?) And yes, that would mean you couldn't work as a nurse I guess, but for those who don't care, that would be fine.
Actually, this might help the animosity between real nurses and NP's like I will be, who aren't "really" nurses. I totally understand why they wouldn't be thrilled with this situation because it kind of belittles what it means to be a nurse. And at the same time it gives less training in being an NP. So it ends up that the PA has the most training for what they will actually be doing in the mid-level role.
Seems to me that the PA programs MUST learn a lot more pertinent information since they aren't spending half of the program training for the NCLEX.

Just my opinion, what's yours?

[ghillbert]

My opinion? You can't be an advanced practise nurse without first being a nurse.

[SWR PA-S]

Originally Posted by morganvibes

I am in an acellerated NP program and have no previous nursing experience.
I know a lot more now about the whole situation then I did last year when I was reading all these posts and trying to figure it out.

I would say now that there needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds for the whole mid-level practitioner designation.
As someone with no intention of working as a bedside RN , I feel that it is plain silly to be learning about bed-making and hanging IV's and learning how to designate to a care partner etc. Not because it is beneath me, but because it is taking time away from learning skills I WILL be needing and using as an NP. The point is, the time could be used to have classes on what I WILL be doing instead of doing this back door way of becoming a mid level provider.

Just because the mid level title "Nurse practitioner" has the word nurse in it, does it have to forever mean that you started out as a nurse? I really think it needs to become it's own job with its own training.(or even give it another name ML practitioner?) And yes, that would mean you couldn't work as a nurse I guess, but for those who don't care, that would be fine.
Actually, this might help the animosity between real nurses and NP's like I will be, who aren't "really" nurses. I totally understand why they wouldn't be thrilled with this situation because it kind of belittles what it means to be a nurse. And at the same time it gives less training in being an NP. So it ends up that the PA has the most training for what they will actually be doing in the mid-level role.
Seems to me that the PA programs MUST learn a lot more pertinent information since they aren't spending half of the program training for the NCLEX.

Just my opinion, what's yours?

I totally agree with you! I am a physician assistant student and actually know of friends that took the nursing route and never practiced actual nursing and we accepted into NP programs. They don't have any intention on practicing bedside nursing. They actually feel that NP programs should start accepting people into their programs WITHOUT having a nursing degree.

[bluesky]

Originally Posted by morganvibes

I feel that it is plain silly to be learning about bed-making and hanging IV's and learning how to designate to a care partner etc. ?

You must not need to learn advanced assessment, critical thinking or time management skills ... or see complexe and rare cases through either... because those are all skills a bedside nurse hones over the years.

[morganvibes]

not sure if that is some kind of a dig?
I'm trying to figure it out, not to ruffle feathers, that's the point of this forum isn't it?

Anyway, the things you mentioned are things we have been learning that ARE appropriate to our NP role, And we do need to learn those things. But, that is quite different than the things I mentioned such as making beds, hanging IV's, and such.

I have been asking and was told from different faculty that there are studies that show that after one year of practice, NP's from direct entry programs (non-RN's) are at the same level as those who were RN's before becoming NP's.

Just to be sure it's clear as well:
Direct entry programs require many pre-reqs. Some people seem to think that you walk in off the street and get an NP degree in 2 years.
Which would of course be ridiculous. That is NOT the case.

Like I said earlier, I am not discounting the RN role, it is just not the same role and has a different skill set. An RN is not diagnosing and prescribing, although they are doing lots of other important things and using critical thinking. Nurses I have spoken to have varying levels of knowledge, it usually depends on what area they have worked in.

[mvanz9999]

Becoming a Nurse Practitioner without formal training as a nurse (and that means all of the skill sets) would be quite pointless. You are then not a "nurse" practitioner. You are a mid-level provider of some sort, but missing everything that makes a nurse practitioner different from similar professionals (mainly in that NPs have nursing theory and skills).

A RN education program would never be approved without teaching a given set of clinical competencies. A school wouldn't even have the option of teaching "IV insertion" and not "Bed-making" (at least not a school with a shred of academic integrity). Nor would there be a point. Regardless of how you get from A to B, you'll eventually have to take the NCLEX and experience is worth 100 textbooks.

You learn for more from doing than from reading something in a book. That includes bedmaking, measuring input-output, changing dressings, getting ice-water, feeding patients, and scores of other "non-NP tasks"

Regardless of where I end up in life, I wouldn't trade these experiences for anything. The thing I will always remember from this time in my life is sitting next to a confused elderly patient and feeding her. Nothing would be worth NOT having that experience (and all the others).

This is where you learn how to interact with patients in scores of situations. It's where you learn the skills that make you different than MD's and PA's and everyone else in the hospital. If a person is not interested in bedside nursing, then pursing an NP is the wrong route. We've had a couple of those in class, and they wisely dropped out and pursued other careers.

I've never once had the thought that making a bed was stupid, pointless, a waste of time, or was preventing me from doing "my real studying". Bed-making IS part of my education (and I do make a fine bed, at that!). I enjoy every second I am in the hospital, regardless of what I am doing.

Cutting out RN training and experience would only weaken a profession that is just beginning to grow and expand. And, if you remove RN training, then you ARE a physician's assistant. So if that's how someone feels, I recommend going that route. You might become an NP but you are still a nurse and will always be a nurse.