1 year= NP? And programs with this?

  1. Any 1 year full time NP programs that allow you to become and NP in a year.........I know of Vandy. Are any of these online with clinicals that you can set up in your hometown?
    •  
  2. 22 Comments

  3. by   gillijr1001
    I would like to know this too...FNP doesnt have to be online but 12 months would be GREAT
  4. by   traumaRUs
    Is this the complete MSN or post-MSN certificate. I did my non-clinical MSN in one year then added another full year to complete the clinicals. The clinicals alone are over 500 hours - whew how could you do this in one year?
  5. by   manna
    I have no idea, but Mississippi University for Women has a 12 month FNP program (complete MSN). Not online, though.
    http://www.muw.edu/nursing/gradprog/
  6. by   caldje
    Quote from manna
    I have no idea, but Mississippi University for Women has a 12 month FNP program (complete MSN). Not online, though.
    http://www.muw.edu/nursing/gradprog/

    wow, someone should make a list of these programs and publish them for patients and hiring physicians. I would hate to be treated by someone who couldn't stand to go a WHOLE 2 years and found a program that was only one year. No way you could become competent in that period of time.
  7. by   core0
    Quote from caldje
    wow, someone should make a list of these programs and publish them for patients and hiring physicians. I would hate to be treated by someone who couldn't stand to go a WHOLE 2 years and found a program that was only one year. No way you could become competent in that period of time.
    Why is this any different. The time doesn't matter the content does. The only reason that most NP programs are two years are that they are conducted within the traditional college credit system. Given that you are only in class 18 hours or less per week it is pretty easy to do that in two years.

    If you look at the Missouri program they do 13 credit hours per semester. This would equal 6 1/2 hours per day two days a week leaving 3 days per week for clinicals. 8 hours per day x 3 days x 18 hours = 432 clinical hours per semester. If you really wanted to you could do class 3 days per week x 6 hours and clinicals two days per week for 8 hours. That would meet requirements for all NP hours but FNP. For FNP a few Saturdays and Sundays any you could do a FNP in nine months. Now this would not allow working during school or pretty much anything else.

    For comparison the Stanford PA program or the UC/Davis program is 15 month pretty much on this type of schedule. This met the requirements for FNP (still does in California) until the MSN mandate.

    David Carpenter, PA-C
  8. by   caldje
    Quote from core0
    Why is this any different. The time doesn't matter the content does. The only reason that most NP programs are two years are that they are conducted within the traditional college credit system. Given that you are only in class 18 hours or less per week it is pretty easy to do that in two years.

    If you look at the Missouri program they do 13 credit hours per semester. This would equal 6 1/2 hours per day two days a week leaving 3 days per week for clinicals. 8 hours per day x 3 days x 18 hours = 432 clinical hours per semester. If you really wanted to you could do class 3 days per week x 6 hours and clinicals two days per week for 8 hours. That would meet requirements for all NP hours but FNP. For FNP a few Saturdays and Sundays any you could do a FNP in nine months. Now this would not allow working during school or pretty much anything else.

    For comparison the Stanford PA program or the UC/Davis program is 15 month pretty much on this type of schedule. This met the requirements for FNP (still does in California) until the MSN mandate.

    David Carpenter, PA-C

    If you reread my post you will see what I was talking about doesn't really have anything to do with what you are saying. I was simply stating I wouldn't want to been seen by, or employ an NP who couldn't even stand the thought of two years of education and searched down a one year program. They obviously aren't looking for the best education, just the fastest.

    p.s.- time does matter. repetition is necessary for retention and there is a limited amount of time in every day.
  9. by   core0
    Quote from caldje
    If you reread my post you will see what I was talking about doesn't really have anything to do with what you are saying. I was simply stating I wouldn't want to been seen by, or employ an NP who couldn't even stand the thought of two years of education and searched down a one year program. They obviously aren't looking for the best education, just the fastest.

    p.s.- time does matter. repetition is necessary for retention and there is a limited amount of time in every day.
    I would look at it a different way. This would be an NP that was devoted enough to do a program full time without working. The eye on the prize so to speak.

    Also I will state again time does not matter. You get no more repetition from 39 credits spread over two years than you do with the same amount of material in one year. You could argue absorption if you want but if you look at retention studies it would be a mixed bag. At least for PAs most actual learning and retention occurs in the first year of practice. School simply gives you the basic tools to do the job, work is where you put the principle into practice (in my opinion).

    David Carpenter, PA-C
  10. by   Lorelai22RN
    Quote from caldje
    If you reread my post you will see what I was talking about doesn't really have anything to do with what you are saying. I was simply stating I wouldn't want to been seen by, or employ an NP who couldn't even stand the thought of two years of education and searched down a one year program. They obviously aren't looking for the best education, just the fastest.

    p.s.- time does matter. repetition is necessary for retention and there is a limited amount of time in every day.
    Dont be so judgemental. Would you feel the same about accelerated BSN programs that are only a year? Also, Vanderbilt which is a great schools has NP programs that are a yearlong if you go full-time.....that is some faulty logic my friend, that you feel someone wouldnt want to be seen by someone who "couldnt stand 2 yeard of ed. Everyone is different and as long as the content is sufficient and is accredited and prepares you well for boards........it shouldnt be a problem. I was simply asking a question..........don't be so hasty to make opinions of those who who wentg to 1 year programs, I am sure there are many who did and are capable.
  11. by   caldje
    Quote from core0
    I would look at it a different way. This would be an NP that was devoted enough to do a program full time without working. The eye on the prize so to speak.

    Also I will state again time does not matter. You get no more repetition from 39 credits spread over two years than you do with the same amount of material in one year. You could argue absorption if you want but if you look at retention studies it would be a mixed bag. At least for PAs most actual learning and retention occurs in the first year of practice. School simply gives you the basic tools to do the job, work is where you put the principle into practice (in my opinion).

    David Carpenter, PA-C
    So if you think that most of the learning is done the year after graduating that is basically saying "time doesn't matter" but then saying in the next sentence "most learning is done in the 'year' AFTER graduation." I would think that means that time does matter since it takes a year after graduation to get the repetition to retain material.

    Why do you think MD programs are 4 years? Because they need the time to cover the material.. right?
  12. by   caldje
    Quote from Lorelai22RN
    Dont be so judgemental. Would you feel the same about accelerated BSN programs that are only a year? Also, Vanderbilt which is a great schools has NP programs that are a yearlong if you go full-time.....that is some faulty logic my friend, that you feel someone wouldnt want to be seen by someone who "couldnt stand 2 yeard of ed. Everyone is different and as long as the content is sufficient and is accredited and prepares you well for boards........it shouldnt be a problem. I was simply asking a question..........don't be so hasty to make opinions of those who who wentg to 1 year programs, I am sure there are many who did and are capable.
    We are sharing our opinions. My opinion is that it takes more than one year to learn to safely practice at the level of an NP. Prior nursing experience would make a difference if it was in the same specialty and involved a lot of exposure to the diagnosis and treatment being made and given by the docs. i.e.- 5 years on a cardiology floor and 1 year to become cardiology NP. But that is not liekly what is happening.

    Sure, a one year program can be accredited and you can pass the boards if you work hard, but it is still a red flag to me that there are one year NP programs out there. I dont think these programs could possibly graduate as competent of a provider as the 3 year part time and 2 year full time programs without requiring much more experience prior to acceptance.

    If you were to honestly step back and look at the situation, who would you want to hire... honestly.. if they were interviewed right next to eachother. Do you think the question would come up from a doc? "So, I see your program was only one year long. Do you think that prepairs you to be a primary care provider?"

    I am just being honest, and think we should all strive to be at the top of our respective professions as apposed to doing the minimum required but in the end it is up to you and what I say doesn't matter much at all. Either way, I am sure if you are very dedicated you will eventually become a great provider.
  13. by   Lorelai22RN
    Quote from caldje
    We are sharing our opinions. My opinion is that it takes more than one year to learn to safely practice at the level of an NP. Prior nursing experience would make a difference if it was in the same specialty and involved a lot of exposure to the diagnosis and treatment being made and given by the docs. i.e.- 5 years on a cardiology floor and 1 year to become cardiology NP. But that is not liekly what is happening.

    Sure, a one year program can be accredited and you can pass the boards if you work hard, but it is still a red flag to me that there are one year NP programs out there. I dont think these programs could possibly graduate as competent of a provider as the 3 year part time and 2 year full time programs without requiring much more experience prior to acceptance.

    If you were to honestly step back and look at the situation, who would you want to hire... honestly.. if they were interviewed right next to eachother. Do you think the question would come up from a doc? "So, I see your program was only one year long. Do you think that prepairs you to be a primary care provider?"

    I am just being honest, and think we should all strive to be at the top of our respective professions as apposed to doing the minimum required but in the end it is up to you and what I say doesn't matter much at all. Either way, I am sure if you are very dedicated you will eventually become a great provider.

    I am dedicated and if I choose to get my MSN and be and NP, I hope the training will be thorough and I wont be judged by the length of my program, by the time I will start in the fall, I will have been practicing as an RN for 2 years. The program I am looking to start is 2 years long for FT students..........I just think quality is more important than quality when it comes to year long programs. Hopefully, my future employers will feel the same.
  14. by   core0
    Quote from caldje
    so if you think that most of the learning is done the year after graduating that is basically saying "time doesn't matter" but then saying in the next sentence "most learning is done in the 'year' after graduation." i would think that means that time does matter since it takes a year after graduation to get the repetition to retain material.

    i should have said most integration is done in the year after graduating. so yes the amount of time the material is covered in does not matter. look at a standard 40 credit np program. the credits are generally structured as 30 credits didactic and 10 credits clinical. the didactic portion is front loaded with 9-10 credits of didactic for 2 semesters and three during the summer. the second year is usually 5-6 credits of clinical coursework and 3 or so credits of didactic coursework per semester. clinical time as usual has a greater number of hours per credit. using the missouri program as an example it appears they use 4-5 hours x 18 weeks for one credit. so if you do this over two years you have 10 hours per week one year and around 20 hours per week the second year. this anecdotally is what many students report here. now of course this does not include study time etc.

    now compare this to the one year course (again using university of missouri as an example). the first semester is nine didactic credits and 4 clinical credits. this works out to about 29-35 hours per week. the second semester is 7 clinical and 6 didactic working out to 31-47 hours per week. the last semester is again 7 didactic and 6 clinical however since you generally multiply summer semesters by 1.5 hours to get the right amount of time this works out to 45-60 hours per week.

    next look at what happens to knowledge once a student gets it. you talk about repetition. however, in case of the two year program the student gets no additional repetition in either the didactic or clinical phases. you could argue that there is increased time for self repetition while studying, but numerous studies have shown that there is a decided decreasing effectiveness past a certain amount of studying. interestingly the argument for a shorter course is that the student is more likely to retain the information if they can put it into practice within a short period of time after learning it. this is the core idea behind problem based learning programs in medical education. this is also why a number of medical schools are going to early continuity clinic, so that the student can put knowledge into application. so i would argue that a one year program will give higher retention since the student is putting the material into practice while it is fresh and will not be distracted by an outside job.

    why do you think md programs are 4 years? because they need the time to cover the material.. right?
    medical school is 4 years for a number of reasons not completely related to medical education. originally (post flexner) medical school was structured as one year of basic sciences, one year of clinical sciences and two years of clinical practice. this produced the gp. if a physician wanted to do surgery then they started practicing surgery or worked with a more experienced surgeon (although at that time surgery really wasn't a separate specialty in the us). after wwii surgery became residency based and started to require additional training. other specialties also started to require residencies until the gp was gradually phased out. now the first and second year of medical school remains the same but since residencies are required the third year has become a try out to see if medical students have an aptitude or interest in a particular field of medicine. for those who have already decided on a field it is a time to get lors in order to get into competitive programs. this continues into the fourth year. so in essence the reason that medical school is four years is that the flexner report said in 1910 that they should be. lecom is experimenting with a three year medical school for fp only. the reason that this is fp only is that the students will be non competitive for any other specialty for reasons mentioned above.

    for reference the first np program was two years in length and consisted of nine months of full time (32 hours per week) didactic and 15 months of full time (forty hours per week) clinicals. it is difficult for me to tell when the change occurred but there is scattered discussion in the nursing literature in the early 70's calling for more accessibility for np programs. around this time the programs began to decrease the didactic and clinical portions of the programs allowing rns to work part time while attending school. so the reason that np programs are two years is not because of material but because of access (in my opinion).

    david carpenter, pa-c

close