APRNs should only be DNPs!

[Lovanurse]

Hi all! First, I want to say that I am NOT starting this thread to start a war. I am working on my very last assignment for my DNP/FNP (graduating 5/4). 1300 clinical hours were required for graduation and was completed in Peds, Geri, clinical diagnostics, Adult 1 & 2 and OB/GYN. Anyway heres the issue...An APRN is a NP, CNS, CRNA or CNM. (I put this here because, I myself, mixed up the letters and initially thought the issue was about ARNPs). Non APRNS are those nurses who have a master's in*nursing*education, nursing administration or another area. They are not clinicians. They do not have a*patient*population they care for.*Please*review the*consensus*documents for further*explanation. RMU accepts only APRNs in our post master's DNP*program. Other DNP programs accept non APRNs. This is*the*debate. *Can a*post*master's DNP program be*appropriate*for an APRN who does not have a patient population?

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

For God's sake I know what an MPH is. I was just trying to clarify what you meant-obviously content and you have clarified that you mean a dual degree. That is what I was asking.

A DNP is not a fluff degree. Try getting into the DNP program at Duke. Along with the 800+ other applicants. Any university worth it's salt is going to require doctoral level instructors. As a professional student, I can tell you there is a difference.

A DNP candidate has to complete and defend a thesis just as a Ph.D does. Tell me how "fluffy" it is when you complete it-and the trend is going to be that NPs are going to have to be DNPs. Many schools are not even offering an NP at the masters level.

This is a portion of the comparison from the Duke SON website:

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]

[/TD]

[TD]Doctor of Nursing Practice

[/TD]

[TD]PhD in Nursing

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Focus

[/TD]

[TD]Nursing Practice

[/TD]

[TD]Nursing Research

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Degree Objectives

[/TD]

[TD]To create nursing leaders in interdisciplinary health care teams by providing students with the tools and skills necessary to translate evidence gained through nursing research into practice, improve systems of care, and measure outcomes of patient groups, populations and communities.

[/TD]

[TD]To prepare nurse scientists to develop new knowledge for the science and practice of nursing. Graduates will lead interdisciplinary research teams, design, and conduct research studies, and disseminate knowledge for nursing and related disciplines, particularly addressing trajectories of chronic illness and care systems.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Curriculum Focus

[/TD]

[TD]Translation of evidence to practice, Transformation of health care, Health care leadership, and Advanced Specialty Practice

[/TD]

[TD]Trajectories of Chronic Illness and Care Systems

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Core Courses

[/TD]

[TD]Evidence Based Practice and Applied Statistics Data Driven Health Care Improvement Financial Management and Budget Planning Effective Leadership

Health Systems Transformation

[/TD]

[TD]Philosophy of Science & Theory Development Advanced Research Methods Statistics & Data Analysis Longitudinal & Qualitative Research Methods Chronic Illness & Care Systems

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

The DNP is for the working nurse and Ph.D for research, not practice. It makes sense that the DNP is the preferred terminal degree for an advanced practice nurse. It's the same as the ADN nurses complaining about having to get a BSN. The masters level NPs don't think more education is better.

[JustKeepDriving]

The DNP is for the working nurse and Ph.D for research, not practice. It makes sense that the DNP is the preferred terminal degree for an advanced practice nurse. It's the same as the ADN nurses complaining about having to get a BSN. The masters level NPs don't think more education is better.

You're wrong. I'm an MSN-NP student and I definitely think more education is better (most of us do!). I just don't think fluffy degree filler will make me a better practitioner. The DSW degree completion has more hard science in it than the DNP completion (they at least have classes in advanced neuroscience). I would be on board for the DNP if it granted me more clinical hours, had more advanced classes in Neuroscience, Anatomy, Pharmacology, Pathology, Diagnosis, Advance Imaging and ECG/EEG interpretation. As it stands knowing that, "Mexican American's have less access to care than Caucasian Americans" would not make me any better at the intricacies of diagnosis, prescribing or understanding the pathology of physical or mental health disease states than the master's degree preparation does.

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

I didn't mean to generalize. I feel that there are some out there than think the DNP is a waste of time and I do not. I am getting my MSN in Informatics first and then getting my DNP so that I can teach, if I want.

I feel that demeaning others and denigrating any higher learning is counterproductive. At this point there is no requirement for the higher degree, but I think we are headed that way.

[oldandintheway]

I think for the betterment and advancement of nursing increasing the entry level education requirements should be considered, that said some of the best nurses I have ever known are diploma and ADN nurses. To the point of "fluff" courses I think they should actually be encouraged; consider how many physicians we work with are "socially awkward" because most of their training was hard sciences. The classics and humanities may not make for better clinicians but may make for more well rounded human beings. I believe in a classical education that emphasizes art, logic, and philosophy, if nothing else it will elevate conversation at the nurses station.

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

On of the previous posters considered the whole degree of a DNP as a fluff DEGREE. I don't consider any classes fluff. One can learn something from any kind of class.

[JustKeepDriving]

On of the previous posters considered the whole degree of a DNP as a fluff DEGREE. I don't consider any classes fluff. One can learn something from any kind of class.

I think all in all what you see from a many of the posters that dislike the DNP is a lot of frustration. This is just my opinion but I see it as a money grab by the schools and a push by the AACN to make practitioner entry a doctoral level with a degree that doesn't expand our knowledge as providers, is costly and doesn't grant more benefits than the MSN-NP does (outside of more ability to teach at university settings). I've heard the argument that the DNP exists to give Nurse practitioners more credibility so we can stand with programs like the MD, DPT, DDS, AudD, PharmD ect., and push for more autonomy however - the fact that NP's were Masters degree prepared wasn't what hurt our credibility, it's the fact that nursing can't figure out it's identity crisis.

Do we require experience prior to entering a graduate program or not? Should this be a sufficiently difficult degree with competitive entry or is Walden enough? Is 500 hours shadowing a social worker for $350/wk out of pocket solid training for practice or is 2000 hours at an Academic teaching hospital the best way to go? Is there value to being a practicing nurse before graduate study or is the entry-level non-nursing background DNP or Ph.D (saw that too.. ELPhD non nursing, so strange) a good way to go for a degree program that originally touted itself as building off the intuition and floor experience that comes with nursing experience?

I have my opinions that of course are biased by my personal experience however I don't have answers. What is a headache is getting asked these questions and not knowing the answers or feeling like the legitimacy of the credentials are in question due to this lack of uniform standards.

Pushing for this DNP - which is a fluff monster juggernaut bastardization of Nursing theory, public health, administration, and business - to be the entry to practice when it doesn't solve the existing problems of "What is this degree all about, what standards should graduates have to enter and exit, and do we adequately prepare advanced practice nurses with these entrance and exit requirements to function as practitioners?" - just further complicates the identity crisis.

[cayenne06, MSN, CNM]

I'm a psychiatry NP. I couldn't give a rip about the OR or actual practice of anesthesia. You clearly didn't understand my post. The programs I referred to were DNAPs for people who were already CRNAs. These DNAPs were post-masters.

I'm impressed that CRNAs actually study science. A scientific profession that requires scientific coursework. Do you hear that fellow NPs? We should emulate these guys.

Judging by the widespread acceptance of prescientific and pseudoscientific ideas within the nursing profession, I'd have to agree with you here, psychguy.

I am all for shoring up the education of nurses at every level, starting with a much more rigorous foundation in basic science, research literacy and skeptical thinking skills. And please, we should not be allowing NP programs to require students to arrange their own clinical experiences. How is this acceptable?

I'm just not sure the DNP credential, as it currently stands, really does much to increase the quality of nursing education. There is too much variability in program content.