ANCC to retire most popular, and eventually all, NP roles. - Page 4Register Today!
- Dec 12, '11 by dianao1I couldn't agree with you more. I have dutifully obtained both an adult NP and adult psychiatric NP certification after completing the two graduate programs. I followed the ANCC's direction to the letter to do this. Then, in the span of one month, I am to find out that both are being retired. The ANCC has certainly let me down. I completely understand that if I meet the requirements I can keep my current certification. But what if I don't??? I can no longer test for recertification.
A few thoughts on this very frustrating matter:
I think its very important to make our opinion known to the ANCC. I don't care that it was due to the "consensus model" that the ANCC is making these changes. These changes are ultimately their responsibility. Its their test. Please take a few moments to write to them to let them know your thoughts on this.
As I see it, geriatrics is a component of adult health. As I understood it, my population specialty was adolescent, adult and geriatrics. By changing this credential, it implies that I am not competent in geriatrics. If the ANCC wanted more geriatric content, why didn't they just expand this area in their adult test?
The ANCC certainly has the power to put a stop to this. If not, I for one will not renew my ANA membership. (The ANCC is a subsidiary of the ANA.) I thought they were supposed to be working for me, not against me. This is no trivial matter. I don't always agree with everything ANA does, but this is situation demonstrates to me they are no longer considering my best interests.
- The consensus model is being done in conjunction with the NCSBN so that all those states that are members will have the same requirements so that will (hopefully) allow an APN to have the same scope of practice in multiple states.
- Dec 12, '11 by dianao1That's a great idea. But why not leave it as Adult NP and Adult Psychiatric NP. Adult NP is one of the largest groups of NP's. Now they want to change it to something that doesn't even exist presently. All states recognized the Adult NP. There was no reason to change.
- Dec 12, '11 by RPF,PhD,NPI have read that the FNP credential is the best suited credential for working in the ED. Most Emergency NPs ultimately provide non-urgent primary care type cases within fast tracks, and having the pediatric scope is a necessary component. Unless one lives in a large urban area where adult and pediatric EDs are mostly separate entities, and in this case the Adult NP is adequate.
I do foresee an issue, strictly based on the consensus statement, with FNPs providing Emergency care if the scope of practice extends beyond those primary care components. Over time, once the state boards have adopted scope of practice standards, an FNP may find himself/herself in hot water with the nursing boards. Unless the FNP also has the additional ACNP (or ACAGNP) credential - and many schools are combining these credentials (Vandy/Emory/etc).
Congrats on finding your perfect job!
- Dec 13, '11 by traumaRUsERs in my area like the combined degrees: ANP/PNP, ACNP/ACPNP.
That was the main reason I went back and did the peds CNS.
- Dec 13, '11 by RPF,PhD,NPYes, dianaol1, at the root of this issue is BC/BE - board certification and board eligibility. By retiring the certification, rather than updating it, ANCC is altering board eligibility (BE) with one stroke of a pen. I was speaking to a friend of mine, an NP in academia, who said she had to allow her NP credential to expire due to insufficient clinical hours. Of course, she retook the exam because she was still BE based on her education at the master level.
Now ANCC has decided that the content of that master level degree is no longer valid for BE. Of course, the next step will be that a master level education will not be valid either. It seems this could be a "ploy" to mandate the DNP for entry level practice, as suggested by another poster. Whatever one's thought regarding the DNP, at this point in time, having the degree is a luxury and not a necessity. However, changing the rules of BC/BE make this degree a necessity.
I have heard from many NPs that the DNP degree lacks in clinically relevant content. But from those who complete the degree, they feel the effort was worth it. I believe this is true with any education, but the value of the degree has yet to be validated to the point where it should be mandatory.
I, too, am re-evaluating my support for ANA. I've been a long term member, but I regularly struggle with the feeling that my needs are barely represented. Only recently, APRNs received attention from the ANA. Something to consider. ANCC did stem from ANA, but they are now separate entities.
Disclosure: I did apply to and was accepted to a DNP program, but opted for the PhD route. My rationale was that the DNP was an unknown, and given nursing's history of changing the rules midstream, as in this ANCC BC/BE case, I decided to go with the known. I have no regrets.
- Dec 13, '11 by core0I think that people are missing a valid point from ANCC. The reason that the GNP is going away is that another organization is/was offering certification without completing a separate GNP program. Once this happened a number of states dropped the certification as an NP certification due to requirements that NPs demonstrate separate coursework in a specific certification. This left ANCC in a rather untenable position. Since they had a seperate GNP certification (and defined GNP as a domain seperate from ANP) they couldn't say well GNP has been included in adults all along. This led them to fold the domain and the certification into the other certifications. Once they did this they were back in the same situation. If they grandfathered in NPs that didn't have the certification then they risked states not recognizing the certification for the same reasons the GNP stopped being recognized. So they ended up with the current system. Its functionally due to the nursing having multiple competing certification bodies.