Advanced Nursing is often considered less rigorous than Medicine even though Nursing is it's own profession. Of course there's overlap. Do you think it's because nursing doesn't require the same rigorous premed perquisites?Osteopathic medicine use to be regarded the same well, but now it is equivalent to allopathic medicine. Do you think requiring the premed prerequisite curriculum (eg: PA, DO, MD prereqs) to gain entry to advanced practice will better prepare advanced practice nursing clinicians?
I have an advanced science background (BS in Biology and Medical Technology) and worked for many years in clinical labs before going into nursing. I've taken all of the courses mentioned in previous posts. Out of all those courses, the only one that has been pertinent to my practice has been micro, which was a pre-req for my program anyway. My basic mid level genetics course has given me enough of a background where I understand and can speak to, inheritance in disease. My actual work experience in clinical labs has been far more helpful and relevant than most of the upper level science courses I took.
That being said, I would like to see more in depth Patho and Pharm taught in NP programs. I think that adds more value and is more relevant to practice than some of the upper level, more esoteric science courses. If someone wants those type of courses and feels they are necessary to practice effectively, then perhaps medical school is a better route for that person than NP school. Or, you can do as a previous poster suggested and take them on your own. I've taken a couple of the edX courses and they are wonderful (and free!).
I am not against gaining knowledge that will improve practice. I am against adding requirements that may not add value to practice, just so we can say we're as good as the MDs. We are not MDs. Most of us don't want to be MDs. We play in the same sandbox, but we bring our own strengths to the playground.
Just to clarify, I'm not against more science courses. It would be a great idea to add them, but I think that the reason some don't require it, is because of the background nurses have.
I think you've drilled to our heads that the outcomes are equivalent for these providers. I think the direction of advanced practice nursing is guided by our knowledge base. Will NPs be stuck with "routine" care while MDs deal with the more "complex" cases. Of course this isn't always the case but it is the perception because it is generally true. I think APNs has the potential to match physicians given the proper extensive knowledge base from a rigorous educational background.
Yes, we don't want to be MDs... and I don't want to see NPs perceived as "mid level" either... jmtc.
Specializes in Internal medicine/critical care/FP.
Why not just do self study? People who self study always retain more info since they are not reading grudgingly. A degree is just a piece of paper. It's not like you can only learn in a restricted educational setting. YouTube and other websites are great. MIT even offers free courses for self study with the same content offered to students.
Why not just do self study? People who self study always retain more info since they are not reading grudgingly. A degree is just a piece of paper. It's not like you can only learn in a restricted educational setting. YouTube and other websites are great. MIT even offers free courses for self study with the same content offered to students.
Because I don't think it should be optional that NPs have advanced science knowledge. That would mean those NPs that are not motivated to be the best could still squeak by without that knowledge, bringing down the whole profession. I mean one big thing for me is the lack of a gross anatomy course for NP programs. So many NPs do not have advanced anatomy knowledge, which is inexcusable for a healthcare provider. I've met many NPs who cannot locate certain nerves or muscles when asked, and I had one tell me the appendix is on the left. This would not occur if NP programs spent less time on the fluff and more on the hard science, especially anatomy and physiology.
I think you've drilled to our heads that the outcomes are equivalent for these providers. I think the direction of advanced practice nursing is guided by our knowledge base. Will NPs be stuck with "routine" care while MDs deal with the more "complex" cases. Of course this isn't always the case but it is the perception because it is generally true. I think APNs has the potential to match physicians given the proper extensive knowledge base from a rigorous educational background. Yes we don't want to be MDs... and I don't want to see NPs perceived as "mid level" either... jmtc. Matthew Andrew, BSN RN[/quote']
I have drilled into your heads! I am doing my job then so I will take it as a compliment.
I don't practice "routine" care. I know very few NPs that practice "routine" care. Most of my patients have problem lists with >10 items. I cover the same complex patients my physician counterpart does, and in many settings, the NPs actually see the complex patients more often than the MD. The one exception might by retail clinic NPs and fast track ED NPs.
Because I don't think it should be optional that NPs have advanced science knowledge. That would mean those NPs that are not motivated to be the best could still squeak by without that knowledge, bringing down the whole profession. I mean one big thing for me is the lack of a gross anatomy course for NP programs. So many NPs do not have advanced anatomy knowledge, which is inexcusable for a healthcare provider. I've met many NPs who cannot locate certain nerves or muscles when asked, and I had one tell me the appendix is on the left. This would not occur if NP programs spent less time on the fluff and more on the hard science, especially anatomy and physiology.
Gross anatomy is also something I've thought about. I know that many, if not most PA schools include gross anatomy in the curriculum (I strongly considered the PA route before deciding on Nursing), and it seems as if many CRNA programs have a gross anatomy course as well.
But NP programs do have advanced physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology, as well as the more medical oriented specialty courses (I always tell people that the course titles frequently "hide" some of the clinical science content, such as "Family NP I", "AG-ACNP III", etc). I'm curious as to what else you believe NP programs should add, or if the gross anatomy is the major thing for you (which I can understand).
I agree with others that at this point, nothing is stopping us from supplementing our personal nursing education with other science courses (I plan on taking histology this summer, as well as genetics and biochemistry later on).
Gross anatomy is also something I've thought about. I know that many, if not most PA schools include gross anatomy in the curriculum (I strongly considered the PA route before deciding on Nursing), and it seems as if many CRNA programs have a gross anatomy course as well.
But NP programs do have advanced physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology, as well as the more medical oriented specialty courses (I always tell people that the course titles frequently "hide" some of the clinical science content, such as "Family NP I", "AG-ACNP III", etc). I'm curious as to what else you believe NP programs should add, or if the gross anatomy is the major thing for you (which I can understand).
I agree with others that at this point, nothing is stopping us from supplementing our personal nursing education with other science courses (I plan on taking histology this summer, as well as genetics and biochemistry later on).
Gross anatomy is probably the biggest thing. Beyond that, I'd probably argue that NP programs could use specific requirements for a skills class (suturing, etc) as well as a diagnostic imaging class. I know these are sometimes hidden in other classes, but they are not explicitly required and I've seen many complaints from NP students saying they had limited practice in those areas. That and more in depth patho (many NP programs use undergraduate level nursing patho books. They should be using graduate level medical texts) and I would be content.
Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
To me, if nurses feel that they are deficient in basic medical sciences (i.e., Anatomy and Physiology, Microbiology, Basic Pharmacology and Therapeutics), this is a reflection of poor undergraduate degree level exposure to these sciences at the BSN level. Just because we are nurses does not mean we don't have to understand fully how the body works and how pharmacologic agents affect the body's functions. If we are indeed deficient in these in our BSN program, we should be proactive enough to learn it on our own as practicing nurses at the bedside.
It is not enough to depend on physician, NP, and PA judgement on plan of treatment. Nurses should also know this information in order to advocate for patients. I feel that the NP students in my class who struggled with Advanced Pathophysiology and Advanced Pharmacology (yes they are standard in all NP programs!) are the ones who admit to having been poorly exposed to these concepts as a BSN student.
As a practicing NP of almost 10 years now, I am more concerned that our NP students may be getting didactics and guidance from preceptors who are not up to date on the latest evidence based practice in the health sciences. Just because a physician went to medical school and finished all those "hard science" courses does not make them competent in fact I have met on numerous occasions during my career, physicians who are stuck in the 1980's and 1990's as far as their management of ICU patients even.
The important thing is that as providers, we update our knowledge to meet the ever changing and dynamic world of medicine and health care. What is standard practice now is likely going to change as new data comes from research. I am glad that I am practicing in an academic setting because I know NP's who complain that they work with physicians who are stuck in their old ways and contintue to practice like that.
Remember that as NP's we also attend CME's and in all the professional organizations I belong to, CME's have always had an audience of physicians, NP's, and PA's sitting side by side. We are all learning the same thing in our respective specialties.
More science pre reqs would weed people out from the NP lemming procession and we can't be having that. Even classes I took in undergrad like Zoology have helped me in the healthcare field and I don't understand why tacking on physics or the pre-med general bio (not the pre A and P Bio) would hurt.
BCgradnurse, MSN, RN, NP
1,678 Posts
I have an advanced science background (BS in Biology and Medical Technology) and worked for many years in clinical labs before going into nursing. I've taken all of the courses mentioned in previous posts. Out of all those courses, the only one that has been pertinent to my practice has been micro, which was a pre-req for my program anyway. My basic mid level genetics course has given me enough of a background where I understand and can speak to, inheritance in disease. My actual work experience in clinical labs has been far more helpful and relevant than most of the upper level science courses I took.
That being said, I would like to see more in depth Patho and Pharm taught in NP programs. I think that adds more value and is more relevant to practice than some of the upper level, more esoteric science courses. If someone wants those type of courses and feels they are necessary to practice effectively, then perhaps medical school is a better route for that person than NP school. Or, you can do as a previous poster suggested and take them on your own. I've taken a couple of the edX courses and they are wonderful (and free!).
I am not against gaining knowledge that will improve practice. I am against adding requirements that may not add value to practice, just so we can say we're as good as the MDs. We are not MDs. Most of us don't want to be MDs. We play in the same sandbox, but we bring our own strengths to the playground.