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?
Absolutely. Must be because of all the hard science classes I took, or maybe my liberal arts undergrad education. Which do you think?
The principle is based on the tenant that circumstance or character of the individual have no bearing on the truth of the claim made. In this case, the truth of the claim is false. Research has demonstrated it. Do you refute that? Ironically, a personal attack was made on me for citing the evidence not the subjective which initiated the discussion, which is the exact polar opposite of your suggestion of my fallacy.
Please, enlighten me, if the research supports quality outcomes by NPs with the current educational requirements, then the continued assault on the credentials of NP education must come from a subjective experience of the individual. Is it then not reasonable to examine the credentials of that individual? Where did that subjective experience arise from? In this case it is not NP practice, nor NP education, not RN experience. So where exactly is the assertion derived from?
As far as my credentials, I have a undergraduate degree from a top tier liberal arts college in Biology Premedical program. This includes separate courses in cell biology, microbiology, genetics, biostatistics, advanced chordate morphology, organic chemistry, non-organic chemistry, physics. Post-graduate education in gross anatomy, A&P I-II, medical microbiology, cytology. I worked in pathology after undergraduate school. I have my RN from an excellent nursing school with all the required BSN courses. I have my graduate degree from an esteemed NP school with advanced pathology, diagnostics, advanced physical exam. I have several years of CME education in advanced practice topics. Oh, and I am a practicing NP.
You only need the same rigorous premed prerequisites if hold on now…you're going to medical school.[/quote']
Lol so true... I don't know why people keep comparing the two. They both are healthcare professionals but is a different scope and preparation. I want to become a NP one day, but i know is ridiculous to compare myself to an MD, not because he is some kind of godly creature, but because the true is that he went to school longer that I would, it was much more intense.
Like you mention , if you took all those pre-reqs you may as well just apply to Med school. NP is a NP, a MD is a MD.
Absolutely. Must be because of all the hard science classes I took, or maybe my liberal arts undergrad education. Which do you think?
The principle is based on the tenant that circumstance or character of the individual have no bearing on the truth of the claim made. In this case, the truth of the claim is false. Research has demonstrated it. Do you refute that? Ironically, a personal attack was made on me for citing the evidence not the subjective which initiated the discussion, which is the exact polar opposite of your suggestion of my fallacy.
Please, enlighten me, if the research supports quality outcomes by NPs with the current educational requirements, then the continued assault on the credentials of NP education must come from a subjective experience of the individual. Is it then not reasonable to examine the credentials of that individual? Where did that subjective experience arise from? In this case it is not NP practice, nor NP education, not RN experience. So where exactly is the assertion derived from?
As far as my credentials, I have a undergraduate degree from a top tier liberal arts college in Biology Premedical program. This includes separate courses in cell biology, microbiology, genetics, biostatistics, advanced chordate morphology, organic chemistry, non-organic chemistry, physics. Post-graduate education in gross anatomy, A&P I-II, medical microbiology, cytology. I worked in pathology after undergraduate school. I have my RN from an excellent nursing school with all the required BSN courses. I have my graduate degree from an esteemed NP school with advanced pathology, diagnostics, advanced physical exam. I have several years of CME education in advanced practice topics. Oh, and I am a practicing NP.
You are not a typical NP, though. Most NPs do not have the background you have.
Again, as a PRACTICING NP, someone who has finished NP school, I do tend to agree that NP school adds a lot of fluff where more rigorous science or diagnostics courses would prove more useful.
And policy should not be required for everyone, on that I disagree. I have no interest in politics and my goal is to be a clinician, and NP programs are supposed to churn out providers, not lobbyists. If someone wants to take it as a credit or get their MSN in health policy, so be it, but I don't think it is fundamental to NP education.
My NP program had 4 useful classes of the core classes I found helpful: pharm, patho, health assessment, and my elective sports med class. I did not learn anything ground breaking or changing from my BSN education in research, policy, motivational interviewing, or theory classes. I would much rather have taken courses in genetics, biochemistry, diagnostics, etc. which would help me much more in my practice. I don't think these science classes have to be hardcore science either, they can be geared towards application in the healthcare setting and I think would greatly enhance NP education, especially direct entry programs.
As far as my credentials, I have a undergraduate degree from a top tier liberal arts college in Biology Premedical program. This includes separate courses in cell biology, microbiology, genetics, biostatistics, advanced chordate morphology, organic chemistry, non-organic chemistry, physics. Post-graduate education in gross anatomy, A&P I-II, medical microbiology, cytology. I worked in pathology after undergraduate school. I have my RN from an excellent nursing school with all the required BSN courses. I have my graduate degree from an esteemed NP school with advanced pathology, diagnostics, advanced physical exam. I have several years of CME education in advanced practice topics. Oh, and I am a practicing NP.
Who asked for your credentials? But I appreciate the modesty and humbleness.
Again, you are certainly not the typical NP provider as stated above. Let's try to stay on topic shall we? These tangents, like posting your entire CV, isn't necessary. It intimidates nurses who want to provide input in the issue. This is certainly not a welcome behavior in this thread.
Who asked for your credentials? But I appreciate the modesty and humbleness.
Again, you are certainly not the typical NP provider as stated above. Let's try to stay on topic shall we? These tangents, like posting your entire CV, isn't necessary. It intimidates nurses who want to provide input in the issue. This is certainly not a welcome behavior in this thread.
Matthew, RN
Matthew-with all due respect, you sound like a child. It's very difficult to find anyone who personally attacks another poster credible. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think anyone disagrees that NP education needs improvement. Most of us, who actually have practice experience, disagree that NP education needs to be as rigorous as MD education. We have equal outcomes. We, as providers, feel that our education, experience, and continuing ed enable us to give high quality care. Some would have liked to have more hard science; most feel it isn't as critical. It's great to be an advocate for NPs, but please understand most of us don't give a rat's orifice what the MD community thinks. We don't have to make changes to get them to like us better. We should make changes to improve patient care and to further our profession. I don't think taking physics and biochem is necessarily the best use of our time to reach those goals. More patho, pharm, and residencies-yes. Biochem, physics, and advanced calculus-not so much. There is an alternative for those who want all of those things. It's called med school.
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?
Just by that statement alone you are inferring that MD education is unnecessary and that NPs are just as good in many populations (whatever that means). I work with all providers as well as with many floor nurses who are also NPs and I am VERY aware of capabilities and skill levels of all. I read their notes, watch their assessments and critique their plans of care based off of my experience and knowledge base.
Why am I here? To bother you or people like you who will defend NP education to the bitter end even if it and it's loose band of governing bodies are sink faster than the Titanic with strong lobbying groups acting as the tether to keep it afloat.
I seriously wanted to be an NP after school but I can't justify it with the current state of its education standardization and the insanity of it's lobbying/accrediting groups. I do not want to spend the time to go to med school with residency so me and many RNs I know are opting for PA with 1 year residency. Thankfully then I can duck out of the political power grabbing mess and garner an education that I find valuable without the obsession of gaining autonomy and or being just as "good".
BCgradnurse, most people in my NP program feel the same as me and continue to feel so even after graduation, and my other NP colleagues agree. I think courses such as physics could definitely aid an NP program, especially since ya know....physics governs the world we live in. But it could be taught in such a way to highlight how physics impacts practice, and how to apply it to practice (such as trauma cases, people coming in for MS complaints, etc.) My PA colleague was so glad to have physics backing her up during her ER rotations because it was essential for trauma cases, and lots of NPs end up in ERs. Application of hard science to practice, I believe, would greatly enhance NPs ability to practice and think critically more so than theory or research or policy. Those classes could probably be combined into one and taught at the DNP level.
Matthew-with all due respect, you sound like a child. It's very difficult to find anyone who personally attacks another poster credible. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think anyone disagrees that NP education needs improvement. Most of us, who actually have practice experience, disagree that NP education needs to be as rigorous as MD education. We have equal outcomes. We, as providers, feel that our education, experience, and continuing ed enable us to give high quality care. Some would have liked to have more hard science; most feel it isn't as critical. It's great to be an advocate for NPs, but please understand most of us don't give a rat's orifice what the MD community thinks. We don't have to make changes to get them to like us better. We should make changes to improve patient care and to further our profession. I don't think taking physics and biochem is necessarily the best use of our time to reach those goals. More patho, pharm, and residencies-yes. Biochem, physics, and advanced calculus-not so much. There is an alternative for those who want all of those things. It's called med school.
Can you please cite a place where I "sound like a child"? What's with the name calling? Are we not all professionals here? Please, let's observe some respect for our nursing colleagues, shall we.
BCgradnurse, most people in my NP program feel the same as me and continue to feel so even after graduation, and my other NP colleagues agree. I think courses such as physics could definitely aid an NP program, especially since ya know....physics governs the world we live in. But it could be taught in such a way to highlight how physics impacts practice, and how to apply it to practice (such as trauma cases, people coming in for MS complaints, etc.) My PA colleague was so glad to have physics backing her up during her ER rotations because it was essential for trauma cases, and lots of NPs end up in ERs. Application of hard science to practice, I believe, would greatly enhance NPs ability to practice and think critically more so than theory or research or policy. Those classes could probably be combined into one and taught at the DNP level.
Honestly, the dnp programs are stretching out NP education to be as long as medical school, yet they still cannot seem to find the space to add in a few medical microbiology or gross anatomy courses? Why is it that the argument against hard science courses is that NPs will no longer be cost effective due to the cost of extra training, and then they turn around and add another 1-2 years of time/cost onto the degree with the DNP, which looks like nothing more than a combination of health policy and more nursing theory research.
So NPs must limit hard science courses to be cost effective, yet there's room for "curriculum instruction" "health policy development" and "organization leadership"??
I'm sorry but this just doesn't hold water. You can't argue that NP curriculums can't have gross anatomy of upper level medical microbiology because the training must be cost effective, and then turn around and waste credits on classes such as those. The DNP was a chance to add some harder science based, in depth clinical courses for those who want extra training, and they've turned it into nothing more than an extension of the masters level fluff - theory, research, and leadership.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts