ANCC to retire most popular, and eventually all, NP roles. - page 3
I just received an official notice from ANCC that my credential will be “retired.” My credential is “Adult Nurse Practitioner,” but other credentials on the chopping block are ACNP, Adult and Child... Read More
3Dec 11, '11 by CCRNDivaI wonder what this says about our current education standards and quality of practice of NPs to our colleagues (physicians, etc) when they are continuing to label current NP education as inferior. I worry that this is sending the wrong message when there is a multitude of research that supports the efficacy of NPs in current practice. Physicians are not required to hold certification in "adult-gerontology" in order to be certified as an internist. Isn't it implied that internal medicine would include training that covers the adult lifespan.
Could this possibly be a back door way to get around making current NPs return to school to obtain the DNP? It seems odd that this consensus model is supposed to start in 2015, the same year they recommended the DNP become the recommended degree for entry to practice. How do we know that this won't force schools to eliminate post-masters options in favor of the DNP?
The criteria they provide for certification elgibility is quite vague, so how is student supposed to be sure they are eligible for certification? How can an education in adult advanced practice nursing not include geriatric nursing content? It does not make sense.
3Dec 12, '11 by juan de la cruz, MSN, RN, NP GuideQuote from ccrndivaoh, it's embarassing. as if acnp and anp aren't too much letters already, now we have to explain to our non-np colleagues what the heck the letters a-g acnp and a-g pcnp mean! being in critical care, there is already an existing body of literature on acnp's in the critical care field and our intensivist colleagues are beginning to understand what the letters mean and what our distinct training is about. it will only be beneficial to let the title hang around for a while and gain more public recognition. like you said medicine never comes up with such pointless ideas, i mean what kind of an oxymoron is "adult and geriatric intensivist" or "adult and geriatric medicine"? granted geriatric medicine is really a subspecialty within internal medicine of family practice.i wonder what this says about our current education standards and quality of practice of nps to our colleagues (physicians, etc) when they are continuing to label current np education as inferior. i worry that this is sending the wrong message when there is a multitude of research that supports the efficacy of nps in current practice. physicians are not required to hold certification in "adult-gerontology" in order to be certified as an internist. isn't it implied that internal medicine would include training that covers the adult lifespan.
could this possibly be a back door way to get around making current nps return to school to obtain the dnp? it seems odd that this consensus model is supposed to start in 2015, the same year they recommended the dnp become the recommended degree for entry to practice. how do we know that this won't force schools to eliminate post-masters options in favor of the dnp?
the criteria they provide for certification elgibility is quite vague, so how is student supposed to be sure they are eligible for certification? how can an education in adult advanced practice nursing not include geriatric nursing content? it does not make sense.
i really can't tell if this a ploy to get apn's to go back for a dnp. i just feel that there's no concrete direction on how this change is going to transition smoothly for everyone affected. ancc so irresponsibily dropped this bombshell without giving clear direction on what curricular changes constitute eligibility for graduates to sit for these new combined adult and gerontology certifications. i actually looked around online to see what changes have been made in the curricula in schools that are already selling a new and improved adult and gerontology acnp program and i seriously see an exact copy of the same acnp program i finished back in 2003! so what makes these programs new? i hope it's not just slapping the word "gerontology" in the title and then calling this specialty track new.
just look at these two examples and i am not knocking these schools down, these are just examples to prove my point:
school b above is a dnp program but after you remove all the "dnp fluff", it's the same old master's acnp program i took years ago in another institution! not surprisingly, my search did show one acnp program that added actual gerontology content:
so here we go again, no consistency and more confusion than ever. what are the guidelines ancc? what makes a program eligible to meet the new and improved a-g acnp certification in 2013? is nonpf coming out with the guidelines and shouldn't one be out by now?
0Dec 12, '11 by reeyaQuote from juan de la cruzDittowhat the heck the letters A-G ACNP and A-G PCNP mean! Being in critical care, there is already an existing body of literature on ACNP's in the critical care field and our intensivist colleagues are beginning to understand what the letters mean and what our distinct training is about. It will only be beneficial to let the title hang around for a while and gain more public recognition. Like you said Medicine never comes up with such pointless ideas, I mean what kind of an oxymoron is "Adult and Geriatric Intensivist" or "Adult and Geriatric Medicine"??
Hahaha, if this trend goes on when they review FNP and PMHNP in few years, the current FNP or PMHNP will be PAGFNP or PAGPMHNP (stressing pediatric/adult/gero FNP or PMHNP)Last edit by reeya on Dec 12, '11
3Dec 12, '11 by PsychcnsHello--my frustrations are slightly different but there are similarities. I got my MSN and Psych CNS certification in 1993, before the Psych NP came along. I have prescriptive authority. The psych cns at that time had five roles: education, practice, consulting, management, and research. My program was very clinical. I had enough of the 3 P's ( pharmacology, pathophys,and psychopharm) to prescribe. And to keep current, I take continuing ed in these subjects. Now I would like to prescribe beyond my home state...Every state has there own criteria and some wont let a cns prescribe at all. Instead of retireing certifications, why doesn't ANCC try to help us more and try to help remove barriers to practice...It should be easy for me to go from one state to another and do the same job...They say it is up to the state to regulate nursing practice--but ANCC could do more to work with state boards to make it easier for license by endorsement (with prescriptive authority) from state to state
3Dec 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.
2Dec 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.
0Dec 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!
2Dec 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.