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?
One way to change that is to stop repeating it. I don't hear this belief in real life, only from the same posters on these threads.
NP education is different than MD education. One is not better than the other. Different roles have different paths and if you have a true team mentality, you will see how different roles complement, rather than compete against, each other.
Go to other sites and see what those posters think of NPs. Those are our future colleagues. Older doctors are used to older NPs, those with tons of experience that went to reputable schools and had lots of hands on experience. The new generation of upcoming physicians sees the endless ads online about "become a DNP in two years!!" They see diploma mills like Phoenix and Walden advertising NP programs. They are losing respect for this profession, and rightfully so if we don't get our act together.
And personally I think every NP should be required to learn more hard science in school. Why is it that you brush off everyone else's opinion about the NP profession and education process by asking for "proof" yet turn around and spout your opinion as fact without requiring the same proof of yourself. Let me play BostonFNP for a moment: "Please point to a study proving that if every NP was active in health care policy that every state would have independent practice by now." The fact is there are a number of factors that have prevented full NP independence in every state at this point and the number of NPs in healthcare policy is not the deciding factor here. Those of us for more hard science could say that would lead to more independence as well. After all, the main argument physician groups use against NPs is that they have inferior training. It would definitely take the wind out of their sails if suddenly NPs were taking the same immunology, gross anatomy, etc courses.[/quote']
Did you misread my sentence? You quoted it, so please explain to me how "personally and professionally I think.." translates into "spouting my opinion as fact" and "brushing off" others opinions. Are you entitled to your opinion? Yes. Do I brush off your opinion? No. Do I take your opinion very seriously? No. As stated before you post with passion but no perspective and you draw incorrect assumptions about a practice you have no experience with. I find giving advice on topics you have little understanding of to be dangerous.
Your comment about education being the main argument physicians use against NP is another example of only a superficial understanding of the topic; it does serve to highlight why a health policy course is not wasted on APN education. Health care policy is not made via physician approval. Decisions about NP education should not be made to placate physicians. Do you think the AMA or any other physician lobby/organization is going to support independent NP practice even if they changed NP school to 4 years plus a 4 year residency? Policy will be changed via quality outcome data, cost effectiveness, a strong lobby, and votes.
Go to other sited and see what those posters think of NPs. Those are our future colleagues. Older doctors are used to older NPs, those with tons of experience that went to reputable schools and had lots of hands on experience. The new generation of upcoming physicians sees the endless ads online about "become a DNP in two years!!" They see diploma mills like Phoenix and Walden advertising NP programs. They are losing respect for this profession, and rightfully so if we don't get our act together.
Yes... Did you also know that there is only ONE for-profit medical school in the US? This school opened with A LOT of controversy. Nursing has several.
Yes... Did you also know that there is only ONE for-profit medical school in the US? This school opened with A LOT of controversy. Nursing has several.
Matthew, RN
And it's an osteopathic school, so there are still NO for profit MD schools. In addition, most physicians and students fully voice their opposition to it with no problem, on all types of forums. Here, for profits are defended vigorously and one can be warned/banned for attacking them.
And it's an osteopathic school, so there are still NO for profit MD schools. In addition, most physicians and students fully voice their opposition to it with no problem, on all types of forums. Here, for profits are defended vigorously and one can be warned/banned for attacking them.
Well, for profit universities sponsor this site... just something to keep in mind.
Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
I think nursing policy and theory courses are fine, and they certainly don't hurt, AS LONG AS they don't take place of legitimate clinical based and science courses. The problem is, it seems the fluffy theory courses are used not to augment a proper science foundation, but to REPLACE it. I think that's because nursing theory is a lot cheaper and easier to teach than hard science courses, and it is easier for a school to start an NP program if a good portion of what they are teaching is basically social science.
That's not true. The policy courses are part of the curriculum along with the healthcare science-based courses in the traditional MS/MSN programs. You won't see NP programs with course titles in the MD or DO curriculum for the simple fact that these are not MD or DO programs. What I did find to be counterproductive on nursing's part is that early during the discussion of the DNP, the nucleus of this concept was to strengthen the clinical training by adding more clinical credits along with a desire for parity with other doctorate-prepared healthcare professionals. I think the finished product as we currently see the DNP now focused more on the latter than the former which has not helped our image as a profession at all.
I think accrediting bodies are fearful of introducing all these hard science requirements into the curriculum because they are afraid it will be too much of a barrier for new programs to get started, and for whatever reason the leadership is currently prioritizing quantity over quality when it comes to NP programs and graduates.
I don't even know if current accrediting bodies think along those lines. You have to remember that there really isn't a specific NP program accrediting body. CCNE accredits all undergraduate and graduate programs in nursing and having NP programs accredited by them appears to me as a consequence of this broad accreditation goals. Let me point a specific scenario and again Walden students, I am not picking on your school.
Walden has always offered graduate programs in nursing even before the first class of FNP/ANP students started there in 2012 (source: Walden University Introduces New MSN Nurse Practitioner Specializations | News & Events | Walden University). Walden's graduate degree nursing program was accredited by CCNE in April 2010, two years before they started the NP program. They are not due for a site visit by CCNE until Spring 2020 (source: CCNE Accredited Nursing Degree Programs). Exactly how are NP programs getting started in our current system without a revisit from CCNE? I honestly don't know and I myself are begging for answers.
Again, I apologize in advance for my example of the above school.
I think nursing policy and theory courses are fine, and they certainly don't hurt, AS LONG AS they don't take place of legitimate clinical based and science courses. The problem is, it seems the fluffy theory courses are used not to augment a proper science foundation, but to REPLACE it. I think that's because nursing theory is a lot cheaper and easier to teach than hard science courses, and it is easier for a school to start an NP program if a good portion of what they are teaching is basically social science. I think accrediting bodies are fearful of introducing all these hard science requirements into the curriculum because they are afraid it will be too much of a barrier for new programs to get started, and for whatever reason the leadership is currently prioritizing quantity over quality when it comes to NP programs and graduates.
Don't NP programs already include "hard sciences", i.e. advanced physiology, pathophysiology, pharmacology, as well as the clinical sciences in the specialty courses? The theory courses are in addition to that. I've noticed that some NP programs are also incorporating genetics as well into the curriculum.
For all those who want that extra science knowledge that medical students are exposed to (notice I didn't say 'taught') . Nothing is stopping you from learning the material yourself. Go buy used versions of the textbooks or the review books for the usmle. Watch videos on YouTube.
University professors are rewarded for being good researchers not good teachers especially in the sciences. You're not losing much studying on your own. Ask any medical school student.
If you're really that gung-ho about taking a science class with a real professor. Sign up for independent study with a science professor.
This.
I have worked my way through embryology, histology and biochemistry textbooks on my own -- not because they were a requirement for my program but because I felt I needed this to broaden and deepen my understanding.
I read the same textbooks and journals that MDs read. I attend the same CE conferences. In some cases I may be ahead of some MDs because I keep abreast of current literature in my field. What's that quote? Most of what you learn in school will turn out to be wrong. The most important skill you have as a medical provider is the flexibility to learn new things and to rethink the things you were taught.
Don't NP programs already include "hard sciences", i.e. advanced physiology, pathophysiology, pharmacology, as well as the clinical sciences in the specialty courses? The theory courses are in addition to that. I've noticed that some NP programs are also incorporating genetics as well into the curriculum.
Sure there are 3 hard science classes but riddle me this. Where is histology, embryology, toxicology, gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, cell biology etc etc that every med school has? We get it, NPs don't want to be doctors but if you venture down the pathway to be a provider don't you think you should at least TRY to imitate what physicians learn considering they are still the industry gold standard.
I have worked my way through embryology, histology and biochemistry textbooks on my own -- not because they were a requirement for my program but because I felt I needed this to broaden and deepen my understanding.
I read the same textbooks and journals that MDs read. I attend the same CE conferences. In some cases I may be ahead of some MDs because I keep abreast of current literature in my field. What's that quote? Most of what you learn in school will turn out to be wrong. The most important skill you have as a medical provider is the flexibility to learn new things and to rethink the things you were taught.
By that rationale I should read a few journals and buy a few books off Amazon then slap a provider label on my business cards. The whole point of the critics here is that this type of education you are doing shouldn't be optional. No one ever stops learning but I seriously am surprised that people here are against morphing NP education to be more sound and complete.
Sure there are 3 hard science classes but riddle me this. Where is histology, embryology, toxicology, gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, cell biology etc etc that every med school has? We get it, NPs don't want to be doctors but if you venture down the pathway to be a provider don't you think you should at least TRY to imitate what physicians learn considering they are still the industry gold standard.
It's a fine line here. What level of training or education do you need to provide quality healthcare? What should be the scope of practice for an NP vs PA vs MD? Can anyone learn to do anything provided a little on-the-job experience?
If we make NP education more similar to MD education, then the length of training will be similar and there will be no cost advantage in hiring an NP. For every additional course you add to the NP load, you add to the total cost of training a new NP. The education and training that NPs receive now has been found adequate for introduction to practice in accordance with the nurse practice act in their respective states. If you want to argue that this level of training is inadequate you will need to show some evidence to prove that their quality of care is less.
matthewandrew, NP
372 Posts
Yes, let's not address the issue so it can solve itself.
Matthew, RN