I remembered reading an old post awhile ago where an NP (who got her DNP) was told by Human Resources that she couldn't use the title "Doctor" at the hospital, because it would mislead the patients.
I am wondering if anyone has seen or heard anything similar where they work (you personally or someone else).
If hospitals are "all about introductions", I see nothing wrong with telling a patient, "Hi, I'm Dr. Smith, I'm a Nurse Practioner"...I see no difference between that and saying, "Hi, I'm Dr. Jones and I'm your Cardiologist".
To me, that would be a HUGE slap in the fact to someone who has worked hard for that degree, because they are entitled to use that title.
Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
Her title, however, is correct.
You know that horrible "Dr. Laura"???? One would think she is a Psychologist...she has her PhD in nutrition NOT Psychology.
Now THAT is misleading.
I agree with you...she has all the right to call herself a Dr. and she actually clearly indicated her degree in the website. However, I also noticed that the home page of her website described her business as a "medical facility" when in fact, she is selling skin care products (non-prescrption) in a spa-like atmosphere. She also claimed she has "board certified medical professionals" staffing her clinic but refused to further list the names and credentials of these professionals she is referring to. I am not aware of California laws but I wonder whether the use of such terms in describing one's practice constitute a violation of the Public Health Code had her business been located in my state. Again, I am just wondering about it. I am not sure if what she is advertising is legal at all.
Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
The idea has been floating around "out there" for a while -- I've heard of it before now. Some pharmacists are pushing for Rx authority for pharmacists. The UK is already piloting a program, but I don't know any of the details. I did a quick Google search just now, and here are a few links:
The issue with how turf wars get started between health profesions is in how we use terms interchangeably. In the first link (the WSJ article), the pharmacist is being touted as being able to practice some "primary care" tasks. That all depends on how one define primary care as there are multiple definitions of this concept. Different states as well as different professional organizations define the term in many different ways. The article to me does not indicate that pharmacists are actually advocating for fully practicing primary care in that they only participating in some aspects of the concept such as monitoring of medication regimen and instructions in diabetic management as the article stated. I actually thought the article is presenting a novel concept.
I guess the public will have to be educated about the term "doctor". It shouldn't be too hard to grasp. Maybe the public will have to learn the term physician to distinguish the differences between the different types of providers. But if someone has a 4 year doctoral degree, they have the right to be called doctor. The public should have the right to see a physician if they want though.
I actually know people who think it's "offensive" or "ridiculous" for anybody who isn't a physician to be addressed as "Dr" even within their own setting (universities, business, etc). That's just wrong and disrespectful.
Just for the record, I admire the doctors in our hospital and in other clinical settings. They've completed rigorous education and training that many want but aren't able to complete for whatever reason. However, I also recognize those who have earned their doctorate degrees in other fields and address them as such in the appropriate settings.
You know that horrible "Dr. Laura"???? One would think she is a Psychologist...she has her PhD in nutrition NOT Psychology.
Now THAT is misleading.
There's a woman in Britain by the name of Gillian McKeith with a popular show "You Are What You Eat" who obtained her doctorate from an unaccredited school yet she calls herself Dr. You can see some of the debate over her use of this title at this website.
Personally, I like her nutrition concept. Her misleading use of Dr. is unfortunate. Would she be less popular if she dropped the prefix?
There are plenty of people who said that about advanced practice nurses getting Rx authority.
There is at least one state (I forget which one at the moment, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that has given psychologists Rx authority.
"Never say 'never' ..."
I think it's Florida. A friend of mine is in the Pharma Psychology program down there. It's a PhD program with tons of clinical hours. It seems to be spreading because he's able to complete his residency within a number of other states. From the sound of it the program is time-consuming and rigorous. He's very, very smart and I have to wonder why he didn't just go the MD route. The length of the program and cost is comparable to medical school.
The patients frequently don't even know the difference between an LVN, RN, BSN, and CNA. They very often consider everyone (female) who walks into a room a nurse. If prior attempts to educate the public were successful, this wouldn't be true.
While some patients may be able to discern between different doctoral degrees, I think it is wishful thinking to expect the average Joe will understand "I am Doctor X, a neuropsychologist." A lot of people will stop listening after "doctor", and very possibly don't know what a neuropsychologist is.
Well, let's turn it around. I've noticed on the nursing forums that the RN's tend to get all up in arms when the CNA's and MA's call themselves "nurses." Why? The term "nurse" in the past didn't used to refer exclusively to RN's/LPN's and they don't own the term. So why are they all defensive about this issue? Because it's misleading to the patients. The same thing applies to physicians. Nurse practitioners running around calling themselves "doctors" is also misleading to patients because they do not have the same qualifications nor the the same responsibilties. Period.
Well, let's turn it around. I've noticed on the nursing forums that the RN's tend to get all up in arms when the CNA's and MA's call themselves "nurses." Why? The term "nurse" in the past didn't used to refer exclusively to RN's/LPN's and they don't own the term. So why are they all defensive about this issue? Because it's misleading to the patients. The same thing applies to physicians. Nurse practitioners running around calling themselves "doctors" is also misleading to patients because they do not have the same qualifications nor the the same responsibilties. Period.
Actually, LVNs and RNs do "own" the term nurses in that CNAs and MAs are not licensed by a governing body and can't legally practice nursing.
DNPs earn degrees and pass boards that give them the authority to call themselves doctors and to practice as doctors of a particular field, just as a DDS is licensed to practice denistry or a DVM is licensed to practice veterinary medicine. Medical doctors don't "own" the term doctor, although sometimes they act as if they do.
There are plenty of people who said that about advanced practice nurses getting Rx authority.
There is at least one state (I forget which one at the moment, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that has given psychologists Rx authority.
"Never say 'never' ..."
On that...I'll say never.
Huge thing missing on all of those: Patient assessment.
I also have no problem with Psychologists have Rx authority. I would wager that the state probably only gave it to CLINICAL Psychologists.
A clinical psychologist is a PhD program and is a very, very difficult program to complete. There is alot of anatomy and a huge focus on every type of drug because they deal so much with abuse cases.
Psychiatrists generally don't do a physical assessment but a mental health evaluation, because you are fixing the mind, not so much the body.
If DNP's want to go around introducing themselves as "doctor" to boost their ego, let them. It doesn't change anything otherwise. A DNP will function the same as an NP except the DNP goes around thinking that they are a doctor now. It seems like a waste of two additional years of my life.
For a nurse to be using the title "doctor" in a clinical setting is inappropriate... period. It implies that the NP has the same clinical training/skills as a physician which he/she does not. As valuable as nurse practitioners are to the team, they are not equal to the attending physician who is ultimately responsible for the patient-- they are mid-level providers. The DNP doesn't change that. I'm sorry, but a year of classes on nursing management and a year of "residency" does not bring you up to par with the MDs/DO's.
Do DNP's have the right to call themselves "doctor?" Sure. But not in a clinical setting. It is is deceptive to the patient not to mention confusing. A nurse practitioner's clinical advice does not carry the same weight as a physician's. As much as you would like to think that it is not going to confuse the patients, it is.
Huge thing missing on all of those: Patient assessment.
I also have no problem with Psychologists have Rx authority. I would wager that the state probably only gave it to CLINICAL Psychologists.
A clinical psychologist is a PhD program and is a very, very difficult program to complete. There is alot of anatomy and a huge focus on every type of drug because they deal so much with abuse cases.
Psychiatrists generally don't do a physical assessment but a mental health evaluation, because you are fixing the mind, not so much the body.
Where did you get that information from? I've been in psych (nursing) my entire career and have many close friends who are clinical psychologists (with PhDs) and their programs didn't include a single word about "anatomy" or pharmacology -- they don't know the difference between ASA and Tylenol!! And psychiatrists, BTW, are required to do H&Ps on their hospital admissions (clients), same as any other physician -- they are often able to palm that responsibility off on someone else, but many of them just do it, since it's a reasonble expectation of their licensure and role ...
Corey Narry, MSN, RN, NP
8 Articles; 4,470 Posts
I agree with you...she has all the right to call herself a Dr. and she actually clearly indicated her degree in the website. However, I also noticed that the home page of her website described her business as a "medical facility" when in fact, she is selling skin care products (non-prescrption) in a spa-like atmosphere. She also claimed she has "board certified medical professionals" staffing her clinic but refused to further list the names and credentials of these professionals she is referring to. I am not aware of California laws but I wonder whether the use of such terms in describing one's practice constitute a violation of the Public Health Code had her business been located in my state. Again, I am just wondering about it. I am not sure if what she is advertising is legal at all.