Doctoral degree to become an NP???

Published

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) is calling for the requirement of doctorate in nursing for advanced practice nurses, such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse anesthetists. This new degree will be called a Doctor of Nursing Practice and, if the AACN has its way, will become the entry level for advanced nursing practice.

AACN Position Statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing

this is one of those "myths" often used by the naysayers who see the dnp as a threat. all the information from the leaders of the dnp movement have clearly stated those without a dnp will not have their practices change. the majority of np programs have or all ready in the process of transitioning to a dnp curriculum. although the target date in 2015, you may see over 70% of current fnp programs offering the dnp by 2010. the momentum is overwhelming.

but will it change those who go thru the dnp route? how much better will it make them? target date is 2015? ok. what about the difference between a 2014 msn np and a 2015 dnp np? will it change the way either practices in a positive sense? iow, will i be better off seeing the 2014 msn or the 2015 dnp?

will there be much of a dnp crop then? can you explain why i would want the hassle of a dnp to be a "mini doctor" when i can do the same thing and go for the "full monty" with more money, more independence and more advancement?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The DNP is not intended to devalue anyone. It is only another elevated standard.

OK. How? Are MSN NPs giving lower standard of care compared to MDs? Non specialty of course. And with a DNP, what else will they get to do that an MSN doesn't?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.
OK. How? Are MSN NPs giving lower standard of care compared to MDs? Non specialty of course. And with a DNP, what else will they get to do that an MSN doesn't?

Please do not twist my words.

I know you know that I did not mean MSN NPs offer a standard of care below par.

No, in the past, to be an NP required no advanced degree. The individual did a preceptorship (4 years) with a board certified physician in a specialty area, then sat for national certification boards.

Later, all APNs were required to obtain MSN.

As the APN career evolves, the doctorally prepared APN is just another step.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Please do not twist my words.

I know you know that I did not mean MSN NPs offer a standard of care below par.

No, in the past, to be an NP required no advanced degree. The individual did a preceptorship (4 years) with a board certified physician in a specialty area, then sat for national certification boards.

Later, all APNs were required to obtain MSN.

As the APN career evolves, the doctorally prepared APN is just another step.

Not doing that intentionally that I know of.

I know that. What I want to know and perhaps phrased badly is that a little while back, someone mentioned that there was a study that said the MSN prepared NPs provided similar levels of care to the MDs. What I want to know is how much better care will a DNP provide to justify the further coursework and $$ that will be spent? As I have asked before, why would you need it? To be better is the stock answer. Better how? If the results are the same as an MD which is the standard for comparison then why? Would they as DnPs have more privillages, money or what to justify the expense? If not, why would I want a DnP instead of an MD degree?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Not doing that intentionally that I know of.

I know that. What I want to know and perhaps phrased badly is that a little while back, someone mentioned that there was a study that said the MSN prepared NPs provided similar levels of care to the MDs. What I want to know is how much better care will a DNP provide to justify the further coursework and $$ that will be spent? As I have asked before, why would you need it? To be better is the stock answer. Better how? If the results are the same as an MD which is the standard for comparison then why? Would they as DnPs have more privillages, money or what to justify the expense? If not, why would I want a DnP instead of an MD degree?

First of all there are no reliable studies (my opinion) that compare the care given by an NP (or PA) to that of a practicing MD. If you want to understand the DNP drive you need to look back through the thread. This has been discussed. From my point of view (as a non NP) there are three driving forces.

1. The concern that graduating NP's are not prepared for practice. There is a non published study that shows graduating NP's do not think they have the clinical skills necessary for practice. There has also been a call for NP "residencies" for this same reason:

http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic28/tpc28_5.htm

2. The use of NP's in areas that were not in the original scope of practice such as specialty medicine. There is concern among nurse scholars that this is outside the scope of NP practice as it currently exists.

3. A thought by some NP's that by getting the title DNP they will somehow get parity with physicians. Personally I think that this will probably backfire. While physicians have loosely tolerated other "Doctors" there has never been a NPP that uses the title.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/professional-issues/20060403scope.html

The reason that you want a DNP instead of an MD is that

A. you are a nurse

B. You would like to get your degree in 3-4 years part time instead of 7 years full time.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.
If you want to understand the DNP drive you need to look back through the thread. This has been discussed. From my point of view (as a non NP) there are three driving forces.

1. The concern that graduating NP's are not prepared for practice. There is a non published study that shows graduating NP's do not think they have the clinical skills necessary for practice. There has also been a call for NP "residencies" for this same reason:

http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic28/tpc28_5.htm

2. The use of NP's in areas that were not in the original scope of practice such as specialty medicine. There is concern among nurse scholars that this is outside the scope of NP practice as it currently exists.

3. A thought by some NP's that by getting the title DNP they will somehow get parity with physicians. Personally I think that this will probably backfire. While physicians have loosely tolerated other "Doctors" there has never been a NPP that uses the title.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/professional-issues/20060403scope.html

The reason that you want a DNP instead of an MD is that

A. you are a nurse

B. You would like to get your degree in 3-4 years part time instead of 7 years full time.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Pretty much agree with this, David.

Might I add, one of the main reasons for the DNP is that MSN prepared NPs are already doing doctorate level courses and not obtaining the rightful end result, which is DNP. That's one of the main reasons for the push for DNP.

If one wants to be a nurse and then advance their practice, that individual becomes an APN (or in your case, David, your desires/aspirations went the PA route, an admirable choice and career). If one desires the MD route, simply put, they choose that career.

I realize the decision to do one or the other can be daunting for any individual, but has nothing to do, IMHO, with "I will have a DNP and be equal in my patient care to the MD". That's totally unrealistic and rather egotistical, not to mention very dangerous.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

There ARE a lot of misconceptions about dnp programs and what the desired end result is.

I do agree that more clinical preparation is sorely needed - and if you are going to add that on top on of the 48 to 56 hours it already takes to get the NP masters in the first place then it SHOULD be a doctoral degree.

We are already doing most of it already anyway, there just isn't room in most programs for additional clinical and (also sorely needed) business and political preparation. The only way to be able to add that without people complaining (as they already do) is to add it and total up the hours for a doctorate. THAT is more than reasonable.

An MS program for an NP is not your standard 28 hour graduate degree program, in many cases it is twice that - why not go the extra step?

Now - that said - I already know I don't want to do another 64 hours of course work for a Phd. The DNP programs will need to be accessible programs for people who already have MS degrees if they want to bridge.

Overall though - MD or NP or PA - in the end I think they will all eventually be seen as different routes, each with their strengths and inherent weaknesses, each with their benefits.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in private practice, corporate.
OK. How? Are MSN NPs giving lower standard of care compared to MDs? Non specialty of course. And with a DNP, what else will they get to do that an MSN doesn't?

Well, they won't be able to title themselves "Doctor" after all that work, because of the law being proposed by the AMA to "protect" patients from people calling themselves doctor, but who are not MD/DO. This "transparency" thing has got MY goat! Not that I'd want to be confused or mislead anyone, but it does seem a shame after all the work not to be able to use the title. I know lots of teachers who title themselves Dr. with EdD degrees...

And I agree with the poster who noted that we can't even agree on minimum criteria for entry into the profession. It's a lot of hot air. Glad I'll be "grandmothered" in...though I wouldn't mind doing the course work if I didn't have 3 kids already in line for the next available trip to college!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
First of all there are no reliable studies (my opinion) that compare the care given by an NP (or PA) to that of a practicing MD. If you want to understand the DNP drive you need to look back through the thread. This has been discussed. From my point of view (as a non NP) there are three driving forces.

1. The concern that graduating NP's are not prepared for practice. There is a non published study that shows graduating NP's do not think they have the clinical skills necessary for practice. There has also been a call for NP "residencies" for this same reason:

http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic28/tpc28_5.htm

2. The use of NP's in areas that were not in the original scope of practice such as specialty medicine. There is concern among nurse scholars that this is outside the scope of NP practice as it currently exists.

3. A thought by some NP's that by getting the title DNP they will somehow get parity with physicians. Personally I think that this will probably backfire. While physicians have loosely tolerated other "Doctors" there has never been a NPP that uses the title.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/professional-issues/20060403scope.html

The reason that you want a DNP instead of an MD is that

A. you are a nurse

B. You would like to get your degree in 3-4 years part time instead of 7 years full time.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Maybe there should be a study to determine one way or the other. I would welcome that. IF I were inadequate, then I would not mind going thru a DNP program if that is what is called for. Just going thru it "just cos" is a difficult pill to swallow. The first 2 points can be answered by having a proper study comissioned to see if the program is lacking and what needs to be done to address it. Otherwise we might be doing things that are not necessary and not doing things that are. Before you jump, you had best look. Seems to me like we are jumping but not even bothering to look at what we are jumping into.

IF you are an RN, how long would it take you to go thru the MSN program and then the DNP program, part time? More than 4 years I would think. Takes about 3-5 for the MSN program itself unless you work at 0.5 FTE status or less. I worked 1.0 and then 0.7 for the last year and a half and did it in 5 yrs. Add a DNP to that and you might be looking at another 5. One of my friends is doing a Phd and started the same time I did and is still doing it. All that considered, it might be at least 8 yrs from RN, BSN to RN DNP. If I were a RN and younger, it might make more sense financially to go to the MD route since I should have my loans paid off in the years to come especially if I hook up with some rural hospitals that pay off my loans if I work for them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Well, they won't be able to title themselves "Doctor" after all that work, because of the law being proposed by the AMA to "protect" patients from people calling themselves doctor, but who are not MD/DO. This "transparency" thing has got MY goat! Not that I'd want to be confused or mislead anyone, but it does seem a shame after all the work not to be able to use the title. I know lots of teachers who title themselves Dr. with EdD degrees...

And I agree with the poster who noted that we can't even agree on minimum criteria for entry into the profession. It's a lot of hot air. Glad I'll be "grandmothered" in...though I wouldn't mind doing the course work if I didn't have 3 kids already in line for the next available trip to college!

I am not as interested in the title of Doctor. Now if you tell me that I can be on par with an MD after all that work and practice independently and not have to have a supervising or collaborating physician if I get my DNP, that might be something to work for. However, if it is the same old, same old, why bother?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I do agree that more clinical preparation is sorely needed - amd if you are going to add that on top on of the 48 to 56 hours it already takes to get the NP masters in the first place then it SHOULD be a doctoral degree.

We are already doing most of it already anyway, there just isn't room in most programs for additional clinical and (also sorely needed) business and political preparation. The only way to be able to add that without people complaining (as they already do) is to add it and total up the hours for a doctorate. THAT is more than reasonable.

Why not cut out the fluff classes and add more clinicals in it? Some of my classes are wonderful if I were going further on in the research field. I'd gladly have dropped them and done more clinical classes. Let whoever wants take the business and political classes on the side or as electives or whatever. Increase the core clinical classes from say 3 to 5 clinical classes. We might be able to find room if we jettison the not so clinical classes from the core requirements and put them as electives.

I spent a semester in UW MAdison doing Advanced Med Surg. I was writing a paper on the latest developments of lycopenes. Even the instructor couldn't give a justification for the long paper with respect to the class although I am thinking that is her research subject or one of them. With that sort of thing, I would be nervous about coming out to practice and feel not prepared.

This is the sort of fluff I would like taken out. IF I were given a choice between that or another 2 clinical classes, I know what I would choose.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

aklim3 - I agree - the ivory towers have already shown they aren't willing to do that. So if they aren't willing to take out the fluff and add more clinical - what other alternative is there?

I would have loved to take certain things as electives and opted for more clinical isntead!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion