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

Specializes in ER; CCT.
Well, perhaps I should use small words than. The language is currently being revised...at the urging of several rather powerful entities. It is likely to be re-introduced, and has some support. Whether or not it passes is of some debate. As far as my credibility, I could really care less what you think. I never misrepresented ANYTHING to this community. As I recall saying that the bill "was before congress", it still is. Merely buried in the subcommittee at the moment, that does not mean dead. The original language would make it only necessary to clarify, but again, at the urging of several lobbying groups, this issue is being re-visited, and the language is being changed. But nice attempt at a spin. I love how you first implied I'm a liar, and then implied that I "misrepresented" information. You would do well in political circles.

If small words would be helpful, I will try. Nothing more than 3 syllables, guaranteed or your next misrepresentation will not be challenged.

1. You said the bill is likely to pass. It is not--There is no evidence of such--except for the word of your scotch drinking lobby friend.

2. You said, under this bill, it would be "illegal" (which to me implies a criminal act) for DNP's to use the title "doctor." This of course is false and misleading. If there were such language, you would have pointed this out.

How was that?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.

I'm going to ask that the personal attacks stop.

We are professionals.

Let's conduct ourselves as such.

Thanks...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
If small words would be helpful, I will try. Nothing more than 3 syllables, guaranteed or your next misrepresentation will not be challenged.

1. You said the bill is likely to pass. It is not--There is no evidence of such--except for the word of your scotch drinking lobby friend.

2. You said, under this bill, it would be "illegal" (which to me implies a criminal act) for DNP's to use the title "doctor." This of course is false and misleading. If there were such language, you would have pointed this out.

How was that?

1. It is not only my neighbor, but also our Institutional Lobbyist, who has a pretty good grasp with what is going on in Washington. Also, I spoke with my congressman not long ago about other issues, and as I was walking out asked off hand about the act. It was he, who told me that it was still in subcommittee, but that there was talk of re-introducing it. So, not simply one source, but a few. I cannot provide you a link to the conversations we had, and if you choose not to believe me, then so be it.

2. The original bill would have only mandated clarification for non-physician personnel. The language is currently being revised, as there are some concerns about PT's, NP's and yes, even PA's using the title "Doctor". They are less concerned about PharmD's.

Again, this is information that has been relayed to me from sources "in the know". I cannot tell you how accurate it is, or whether or not it will pass. Our lobbyist seems to think that there is a fair amount of support for it, and the AMA among others are pushing fairly hard for this. Again, you can believe me or not. I do not have concrete links or data at this point. I will post them when I do.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
1. It is not only my neighbor, but also our Institutional Lobbyist, who has a pretty good grasp with what is going on in Washington. Also, I spoke with my congressman not long ago about other issues, and as I was walking out asked off hand about the act. It was he, who told me that it was still in subcommittee, but that there was talk of re-introducing it. So, not simply one source, but a few. I cannot provide you a link to the conversations we had, and if you choose not to believe me, then so be it.

My bad, two--not one, undocumented sources.

2. The original bill would have only mandated clarification for non-physician personnel.

Much better. Notice how this statement is in-line with reality as manifested by its close following of the provision of the dead bill? This is what is known as a factually accurate statement. Notice how this is a bit different than your previous factual assertion:

... it will be illegal for ANY NP or nurse ...to call themselves "doctors" in the clinical setting.

The language is currently being revised, as there are some concerns about PT's, NP's and yes, even PA's using the title "Doctor". They are less concerned about PharmD's.

As soon as this actually occurs, do let us know. Also, is there now a clinical-based doctorate for PA's? If you do not know the difference between a research-based versus a clinical-based doctorate degree please disregard the question.

I cannot tell you how accurate it is, or whether or not it will pass.

A good rule of thumb is when passing off information as factual, it is a good idea to ensure of its accuracy or prepare to be challenged as you have within our meaningful discussions.

Our lobbyist seems to think that there is a fair amount of support for it, and the AMA among others are pushing fairly hard for this.

The AMA wants to control NP's. This is no new or big mystery. They are very threatened by our profession as manifested by the passing of AMA resolution 214 and 303. If the AMA had any clout over nursing, the passing of these provisions would have had an impact. Fortunately, there is much transparency in the AMA's rhetoric.

I do not have concrete links or data at this point. I will post them when I do.

Do keep us posted. Factual information is always good. Hearsay and what cousin ed said last summer at band camp is a bit lower down on the ladder of stronger forms concrete evidence.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
I'm going to ask that the personal attacks stop.

We are professionals.

Let's conduct ourselves as such.

Thanks...

Sorry SirI,

Just my way of welcoming new folks to Nursing's House at allnurses.com.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED/trauma.

Tammy79, RN, I think I love you! And while it has been fun watching you make some people back pedal sooo fast, you'd better be careful or those powerful, big-time congressmen friends will getcha!:sofahider:chair::pumpiron::lvan:

Sure wish we had strong people on our side. I've always said that I like how everyone is welcome here, but I'm starting to wonder if we should change the name since so many haters are visiting.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CT ICU, OR, Orthopedic.

ok, I'm new to all of this...I thought the ANA controlled and made decisions re all APN etc...aren't they the ones that are implimenting the DNP?? I always thought they were a very powerful entity. Are they going to fight this? Can someone point me in the direction to find out more about policy implementation?

Thanks!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
ok, I'm new to all of this...I thought the ANA controlled and made decisions re all APN etc...aren't they the ones that are implimenting the DNP?? I always thought they were a very powerful entity. Are they going to fight this? Can someone point me in the direction to find out more about policy implementation?

Thanks!!

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/DNP/DNPFAQ.htm

Follow the links for more info.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
my bad, two--not one, undocumented sources.

much better. notice how this statement is in-line with reality as manifested by its close following of the provision of the dead bill? this is what is known as a factually accurate statement. notice how this is a bit different than your previous factual assertion:

as soon as this actually occurs, do let us know. also, is there now a clinical-based doctorate for pa's? if you do not know the difference between a research-based versus a clinical-based doctorate degree please disregard the question.

a good rule of thumb is when passing off information as factual, it is a good idea to ensure of its accuracy or prepare to be challenged as you have within our meaningful discussions.

the ama wants to control np's. this is no new or big mystery. they are very threatened by our profession as manifested by the passing of ama resolution 214 and 303. if the ama had any clout over nursing, the passing of these provisions would have had an impact. fortunately, there is much transparency in the ama's rhetoric.

do keep us posted. factual information is always good. hearsay and what cousin ed said last summer at band camp is a bit lower down on the ladder of stronger forms concrete evidence.

ahhh, you have no real conception of how things work in dc do you? things are often discussed "off-line" for months before legislation is actually introduced. the ama's pac, as well as lobbyists for several large and powerful physician led institutions are pushing for this. as both of these people have talked with me in the past, and subsequently were correct in their statements, i will continue to trust them. i misrepresented nothing. the bill is still before congress. several of the largest healthcare institutions in the country are already crafting rules that will not allow dnp's to call themselves "doctor". the language in the bill is being changed. not only to address asa and ama concerns about the dnp, but also to assuage and comfort the chiropractic, optometry, and psychology

communities. you can scoff all you want, one of us will be proven right.

as far as the doctoral degree. there is discussion in the pa community, as the baylor em residency now offers a doctoral of pa studies to it's graduates, as to whether or not this would be a good idea to pursue further. as it is tied to an entire residency, i would assure you that it is certainly a "clinical doctorate"....and while we're on that note, please let me know when the np community actually creates a clinical doctorate. because i've been reviewing the class structures at several schools, and they look an awful lot like a doctoral degree in health administration.....hardly clinical...here's an example.

u-pitt has a dnp 'with a leadership focus' (if i didn't know it was a dnp.. i would assume is was a mn in nursing administration... or even a mha with a nursing focus....).from what i've seen there is huge variance among schools, no outcome based standards..., no method to conduct a true standardized test that validates the clinician. but it's a "clinical" doctorate.....excuse me while i laugh..:chuckle

fall semester (year 1) nursp 2061-organizational & management theory

nursp 2075-introduction to nursing informatics

nur 2900-translating knowledge in action: the basic science of care

nur 2011 -- applied statistics for evidence-based practice

spring semester (year 1)

nur 2010 --health promotion and disease prevention in culturally diverse populations

nur 2000-research for evidence based practice i

nursp 2090-health care outcomes

nursp 2091-financial management for health care leaders

summer semester (year 1)

nur 2007-research for evidence based practice ii

nur 2092-leadership development

nursp 2372 --using data to drive decisions

fall semester (year 2)

hsadm 2135-health policy

hpm 2012-financial management foundations in health care and public health

boah 2411-human resources competitive advantage

nursp 2373-residence (master's)

spring semester (year 2)

nur 3092 -- leadership in complex systems

nur 3094-evidence based management for quality improvement

pia 2170-management of non-profit organizations

bchs 2563-community health assessment

summer semester (year 2)

nur 2830 --advanced leadership in clinical practice

nur 3096 -- clinical systems analysis and design

epidem 2110-principles of epidemiology

fall semester (year 3)

hcpm 2150-strategic management of health service organizations

hpm 2125-health economics

nur 3050 or nur 3052-grant writing or morificecript development

nursp xxxx-- residency (doctoral)

spring semester (year 3)

nursp xxxx-residency ii (doctoral)

nur 3036-capstone project

nur 3037-- capstone clinical

total credits: 81

cheers.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, Tele, Psych.
Thanks for the concern for "my education", but you should be more worried about the patients you are going to treat in the future, I know I am. As to your other comment, it is not up to physicians to produce studies. Physicians for the most part could care less about NP's or PA's. The care that they provide is still considered the "Gold Standard", if we want more autonomy and independence, than it is up to US as PA's and NP's to produce and provide solid credible peer reviewed data. Agreed that physicians co-opted the title doctor from PhD's, however, it is what it is, and when you say doctor in the clinical setting MOST patients will think that you are referring to an MD. The line for NP's and PA's is blurred even further, in contrast to PsyD's, D.C.'s, and O.D.'s, even D.P.M's, in the fact that our job so closely mirrors that of a physician, this is the concern of the AMA, and other groups, including Mayo. You don't have to like that factoid, but you do need to recognize their concern.

Cheers.

i hate to point out that not even the IOM considers care by provided by most physicians as the "Gold Standard". the only prople that consider it as such are those with an economic interest in presenting themselves that way (ie the AMA and AAFP and apparently other groups that are run by physicians). again i'll point out that PsyDs (and PhDs and EdDs) work right next to MD psychiatrists and all are rightly called "Dr" with their functions almost indistinguishable. the same is true with ODs and opthamologists. DCs and DPM (in Arizona at least) tend to work seperately but at the VA, even these providers are addressed as "Dr" in the clinical setting. The professed concern is misplaced. while in some places the role of psychiatrist and psycologist or optometrist and opthamologist may be widely seperated, this is not generally true.

thanks

Up Vote Up Vote ×
i hate to point out that not even the IOM considers care by provided by most physicians as the "Gold Standard". the only prople that consider it as such are those with an economic interest in presenting themselves that way (ie the AMA and AAFP and apparently other groups that are run by physicians). again i'll point out that PsyDs (and PhDs and EdDs) work right next to MD psychiatrists and all are rightly called "Dr" with their functions almost indistinguishable. the same is true with ODs and opthamologists. DCs and DPM (in Arizona at least) tend to work seperately but at the VA, even these providers are addressed as "Dr" in the clinical setting. The professed concern is misplaced. while in some places the role of psychiatrist and psycologist or optometrist and opthamologist may be widely seperated, this is not generally true.

thanks

Right, and the language that is being re-worded is primarily being done to assuage those groups. As far as the IOM, well, I'd like to see a link to a statement that they do not consider physician care to be the standard of care. The new language of the bill that we will likely see this year will allow for DC's, DPM's, OD's, and PsyD's to retain their title of doctor, but will prevent others from following suit. The AMA has conceded that point, else they know that their is virtually no possibility of the bill passing without having those other groups neutrality at the very least.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, Tele, Psych.
ok, I'm new to all of this...I thought the ANA controlled and made decisions re all APN etc...aren't they the ones that are implimenting the DNP?? I always thought they were a very powerful entity. Are they going to fight this? Can someone point me in the direction to find out more about policy implementation?

Thanks!!

ANA is not as strong an entity as the AMA. the DNP is being pushed by AACN, NONPF, AANP, ACNP et al (they put out a joint statement this past summer on the issue). perhaps if the ANA or any other single organization represented nures as a single lobbying group, we would get a bit farther. that's just my humble opinion on the issue.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion