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?
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.
Should NPs just be cost effective? As a nurse, I don't appreciate the fact that NPs are seen as cheap labor (AEB 80% reimbursement for the same services provided by MD.) This will perpetually reinforce the current "midlevel" status of NPs.
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.
Yes, we are on the same level of thinking my friend.
Medicine is raging a turf war against APNs who simply just want to practice to the fullest extent of their education. It's common to always hear physicians state that we simply do not have the same level of education and training. And they are certainly correct. NPs are not even required to go into residencies.
I just want to see an overhaul of advanced practice in this country.
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.
PAs include advanced science training, including cadaver labs, and they are you'll cost effective. The difference? They don't waste half of their credits on fluff.
Should NPs just be cost effective? As a nurse, I don't appreciate the fact that NPs are seen as cheap labor (AEB 80% reimbursement for the same services provided by MD.) This will perpetually reinforce the current "midlevel" status of NPs.
Matthew, RN
If you'd like to see NP education more similar to MD education, then where do you draw the line? What should be included, what shouldn't be included? All the premed requirements? All the med school requirements? At some point there is going to be divergence. I happen to agree that there is not enough science in the NP curriculum but which courses do you think should be required? histology, embryology, biochemistry -- once you start adding 2-3 semesters worth of courses you are looking at a much longer training. Once we get to that point, why would anyone be an NP, when you can just be an MD for 1-2 years longer?
I would not call an NP simply a cheaper alternative to an MD. However, the evidence so far has shown that we are able to provide an equivalent level of care to an MD within our training and certification.
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.
This is really insulting. You're inferring that this is all that the poster did, completely dismissing her nursing and NP education and training. No one here is against improving NP education. We're just saying we don't want to be MDs and don't feel that level of education/training is necessary to be a good provider.
People here seem to think adding a few science courses to the NP curriculum would suddenly make it similar to medical school. It wouldn't. I don't think anyone here is advocating NP school to be comparable to medical school because that would take a huge overhaul and require A LOT more information and training. What we are saying is that while NPs are wonderful and competent, a little more science wouldn't hurt. It would still be a far cry from medical school, but it would be a step up from where it is now, and I don't see why that leads to all this resistance.
It would still be a far cry from medical school but it would be a step up from where it is now [/quote']
And you know where NP school "is now" from what? Your experience applying to NP school? Your year of experience as an RN interacting with providers? Your extensive research on the literature?
And if I might ask, where do all these extra courses fit into this program:
"I've been looking around trying to find a shorter online FNP program - 18 months or less. The reason for this is that I feel the pacing of most FNP programs is too slow in order to accommodate working RNs. I have decided to not work during my program and want to dedicate all of my time to becoming an NP, so I would be interested in finding a more accelerated program to ensure I am not bored and because I can't afford to not work for 2-3 years. I think 18 months or less would be great"
This is really insulting. You're inferring that this is all that the poster did, completely dismissing her nursing and NP education and training. No one here is against improving NP education. We're just saying we don't want to be MDs and don't feel that level of education/training is necessary to be a good provider.
So basically you are saying NPs are just as good as MDs right? I guess docs take those classes for fun and giggles right? I mean since gross anatomy or histology adds nothing to being a provider.
So basically you are saying NPs are just as good as MDs right? I guess docs take those classes for fun and giggles right? I mean since gross anatomy or histology adds nothing to being a provider.
If you read carefully, you would see that I did not say that at all. I said you do not need a medical school education to be a good provider. NPs provide comparable care to MDs in many patient populations. There is data to support that. An MD level of education is not always needed.
Dranger-why are you here anyway? Just to stir up trouble or so you can feel superior to NPs?
matthewandrew, NP
372 Posts
Should NPs just be cost effective? As a nurse, I don't appreciate the fact that NPs are seen as cheap labor (AEB 80% reimbursement for the same services provided by MD.) This will perpetually reinforce the current "midlevel" status of NPs.
Matthew, RN