All Those NPs with No Bedside Experience

Updated:   Published

I'm sure I'm going to start a perfect storm of feces by saying this on allnurses, but here goes:

Nurse practitioners are getting dumber and dumber. There was a time when I would have used a nurse practitioner as my primary health provider without hesitation; when I would have even preferred an NP over an md. They were more careful, more thorough, and listened better. There was a time when I preferred dealing with nps over residents as providers in the ICU. They were more careful, more thorough and listened better. Those times are past.

I'm not saying I don't work with some good nurse practitioners. I work with twelve of them on a regular basis, and three of them are excellent, one has potential. The rest . . . Not so much.

It's not just that they're young and inexperienced. Youth is fleeting and inexperience can be cured. It's that they're not careful, not thorough and they don't seem to listen. Worse than that, at least six of the eight seem to believe that they're "Better than bedside nurses". Smarter, better educated, more aware of what's going on with the patient (from their vast experience and the copious time they spend with their patients in between shopping and doing crosswords on the internet) and better able to communicate with the attending physician than we are.

I don't deny that a nurse practitioner has a master's degree. But so do I, so does bethany, and so do some of my colleagues. One even has a phd. (OK, so it's in literature, but she has a phd.) yes, nps have more nursing education, but it seems that they have so little bedside experience they don't even know what they don't know.

The most dangerous nurse is one with about two years experience. They've got enough experience to be competent -- barely -- but not enough to know what they don't know, and too many of them think they know everything. Unfortunately, that's about the stage most of our nps were in when they graduated from their MSN programs and became nurse practitioners. So what we have in the ICU is eight nurse practitioners with two years or less of bedside experience, all of whom think they know everything they need to know about being a bedside nurse and most of whom think they know more than the experienced ICU nurse they're working with. But they don't.

Youth is fleeting and inexperience and ignorance are curable, but arrogance is dangerous. An NP who is so impressed with the initials after her name that she won't listen to the RN who has been at the bedside for ten years or more and who has been there, seen that is vastly more dangerous than a bedside RN with two years of experience. Even a two year nurse who is convinced she knows everything. Worse, the brand new nurses will listen to the NP with all of the initials after her name, whether or not she actually knows what's going on, before they'll listen to the experienced bedside nurse responsible for their orientation.

What brings on this rant, you ask? The NP who ordered amiodarone for the patient with the paced rhythm because she was so sure it was ventricular tachycardia. "We don't need to defibrillate him because he has a good blood pressure," she said self-importantly. "But let's load him with amiodarone." she wouldn't believe it was a paced rhythm when I showed her the rhythm strip with all those cute little pacer spikes. She wouldn't believe it was a paced rhythm when I showed her the 12 lead. Unfortunately, this is just one in a series of similar incidents.

About the amiodarone -- she did believe it was a paced rhythm when I showed her what happened when I turned off the pacer. (lots and lots of cute little pacer spikes and none of those wide qrs complexes she was so sure were v tach.)

They want to be nurse practitioners -- OK. That's great. But please listen to the experienced RN at the bedside. She just might teach you something.

Shame on us for lowering standards. Average CRNA has 8 years edperience before school. Thats a standsrf worth emulating. Get rid of online programs. We need more credibility and less people with mediocre skills.
Online programs have recorded lectures and (obviously) hospital-unit based clinicals. Please explain how this is any different. I'll take a stab at it...With online learning, you absorb things in the comfort of your home. You hear the same lecture, but when you have a question you pause it and look something up. You don't have to drive 3 hrs per day to the university, so you get more sleep and you are more awake and alert for clinical. I see what you mean, DOWN WITH ONLINE!

You can't get an RN in one year.I have a BA in English, it took me 5 years because I took my time so I could earn the top 5% gpa that earned me admission in to an accelerated program. Since I had no science credit, I had to take 2 full years of Chem, A&P, Micro, etc. Now I'm finishing a one year accelerated program in which I am in the hospital for 24 hours every week with no break between rotations and 16 hours in lecture per week with tests every week and projects every other. I did the SAME # of clinical and lecture hours as you, and showed the ability to learn things twice as fast...and you think I should be penalized...nice This "one year BSN" you speak of is the equivalent of 8 years of education, and the people in my program are an average age of 30 with real world experience and excellent people skills.If you want a 22 year old kid who went to a traditional program working alongside of you, don't worry, there are very few of us "1 year slackers" around.

This topic relates quite well to my feeling about 1 year accelerated BSN programs as well - if I can't get an ART HISTORY degree in one year, should you be an RN within one? Totally nonsensical
+ Join the Discussion