Doctoral degree to become an NP???

Specialties Doctoral

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

Well best of luck to you linearthinker. That sounds like a very in depth program. I tend to use Hopkins and UMD's DNP program as a comparison for all others (simply because that is what I am familiar with), and their programs are 2 years full time, post masters. So, like you said, we need standardization. 2 yrs full time or 3 years part time seems more reasonable for a working practitioner, should the DNP become mandatory. But then the argument gets brought up that a doctoral program should be longer than 2 yrs coursework.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in FNP.

My matriculation plan may have an uncommon breadth due to my desire to take EVERY elective, not just four of them, lol, but it contains not nearly as much depth as I'd like. I could take more classes at the med school, but I am limited by time. I need to be out of school before my eldest goes off to college himself. Instead I have worked in 8 semesters of clinicals, which should provde me about 2000 hours, not including semester abroad. I will still come out a novice NP!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Does anyone know when will we be able to know for sure if a phd will be the new requirement? I am a sophomore in college, but have been really thinking about becoming a nurse practitioner. Thank you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Good argument. Clearly, by being ranked a few spots higher than physicians in the trust scale, you are equivalent/superior to physicians in terms of medical training/knowledge. It makes complete logical sense.

I don't know if I find it funny or concerning that every time a valid concern is made on these forums (regarding, for example, the lack of clinically useful science courses or adequate amount of clinical training in the NP/DNP curricula) your response is to take it as a personal attack and respond as such or to run away from the discussion by evoking the "nurse-hater" term. You repeatedly fail to address concerns that are brought up even by other nurses and continue the march toward independence. Scary!

Trust has a lot to do with healing, but that is besides the point. Training and knowledge don't go half as far as experience and wisdom in any profession. Just because someone has more training, that doesn't mean the training is superior, just that it is different. You don't really think logically, you think through the eyes of someone who has taken the physician rhetoric about their far superior training hook, line, and sinker. The garbage you spew about the far superior nature isn't a valid concern that needs to be "addressed" by anyone. It doesn't matter that they are also brought up by nurses who have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Nor does it matter that they are brought up by physicians who have ulterior motives in wanting to limit competition. The march toward independence for nurse practitioner is only hampered by greedy monopolistic doctors.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I think the term "fluff" was not used to connote easy. It was used to show that these courses just pad the credit hours, so that the DNP can be in the ballpark (by number of credits) of other non-thesis doctorates. So instead of adding clinical courses, they add stuff to fluff up or pad the credit hours.

Unlike those non-thesis doctorates (MD/DO, DPT, DMD/DDS, PharmD) whose courses are completely centered around the subject matter that they will practice, the DNP has courses well outside of the scope of the clinical degree (ie the MPH courses instead of clinical courses). This really would be a non-issue if the nursing leadership wasn't fighting tooth and nail for equal rights. Equal rights is fine if there is equal training. That is why DOs have gained equal rights over the last 50 years. However, just adding clinically irrelevant courses so that you can call yourself doctor is irresponsible and disingenuous. Now I know no one on this board added these courses to the DNP, but to act like there is not a problem here and not to push for a stronger clinical degree is just as bad. I applaud you all who do want more clinical courses.

Now, in terms of those research and statistics courses being just as hard as the clinical ones... pleeeeease. While they may not be easy, they are far from as hard as the clinical ones, at least in my experience. For full disclosure, I have one of those pesky graduate degrees in biochemistry as well, so let's not act like I don't know about research/statistics courses.

If you combine a masters in Biochemistry and an MPH you do not get a PhD in biochemistry. That is what the DNP is trying to do- adding a masters degree in nursing to part of an MPH and acting like you come out on the other side with a clinical doctorate. So people are who are raising concerns are not bashing nurses, or DNPs or anything of the sort. They are however raising concerns over people who act like nothing is wrong- especially when those same people are fighting so rabidly to have more and more responsibility.

I understand that you think the courses aren't useful, but that is just your opinion. As far as raising concerns, how is it a concern when the masters degree already prepares a nurse practitioner for independent practice? When you take that into account, why would anyone raise any concern about it whatsoever? Doesn't make too much sense, does it?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
history often repeats itself, increased education is considered a benefit for the public.

this is a recurring problem that the public needs to start to come to grips with. they often get no additional value for the increased education, but they pay a whole lot more. i say the physician is overeducated and a dnp is as well. so is a bsn. adn is qualified to do their job, np with a masters is qualified to practice independently, etc. nobody needs a bsn or a dnp. what we need to start doing is lowering some education requirements and start to make getting basic primary care far more affordable.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I, for one, do not want someone with a 2nd rate education providing medical services for me or my family or anyone else for that matter. We're all glad that YOU think our educational process is overboard, but you have no idea. Have you ever treated anyone with an illness other than a forehead that feels warm? I doubt it. The parents of the children I have helped to treat in the Pediatric ICu are all very glad of the training I received. It helped to me understand things like airway pressure release ventilation, management of ECMO patients, etc. Canyou with all of your medical wisdom explain to me the complications of narcuron overdose? What about the management of IICP in a brain tumor patient? Care to take a try at management of amoebic meningitis? There is a reason for our educational system and it is the safe management of ill patients.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I, for one, do not want someone with a 2nd rate education providing medical services for me or my family or anyone else for that matter. We're all glad that YOU think our educational process is overboard, but you have no idea. Have you ever treated anyone with an illness other than a forehead that feels warm? I doubt it. The parents of the children I have helped to treat in the Pediatric ICu are all very glad of the training I received. It helped to me understand things like airway pressure release ventilation, management of ECMO patients, etc. Canyou with all of your medical wisdom explain to me the complications of narcuron overdose? What about the management of IICP in a brain tumor patient? Care to take a try at management of amoebic meningitis? There is a reason for our educational system and it is the safe management of ill patients.

Your post here just further proves my point. You think that what I mean is that nobody needs additional or heavier education. What you don't understand is that generalists don't need that much education, because they don't deal with all of these things that you mention here. I didn't say everyone was overeducated. Some things might warrant the cost of extra education, but in the case of a primary care physician, it isn't warranted. Furthermore, what does a BSN teach you about these typese of things that you mention here? Just because and education isn't overkill, it doesn't mean that it is 2nd rate. Are you saying that a nurse practitioner with a masters degree is second rate? Is that what you mean? Are you saying that an ADN is second rate because they don't have a BSN? IS that what you mean?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
just because someone has more training, that doesn't mean the training is superior, just that it is different. you don't really think logically, you think through the eyes of someone who has taken the physician rhetoric about their far superior training hook, line, and sinker. the garbage you spew about the far superior nature isn't a valid concern that needs to be "addressed" by anyone. it doesn't matter that they are also brought up by nurses who have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. nor does it matter that they are brought up by physicians who have ulterior motives in wanting to limit competition. the march toward independence for nurse practitioner is only hampered by greedy monopolistic doctors.

so 3 years of training, with limited clinical hours and lack of sufficient foundational courses (pharm/path) is now the same as 7 years of training with more hours, more relevant courses and a complete lack of filler courses? now who is it who has been drinking the coolaid?

remember that in the last 30 years, family practice people saw that they needed more training to adequately take care of their patients so they first added a residency and then lengthened it. all without an increase in pay. so now lopping that education to less education than just medical school is sufficient?

i mean that really makes sense to you? seriously?

this is a recurring problem that the public needs to start to come to grips with. they often get no additional value for the increased education, but they pay a whole lot more. i say the physician is overeducated and a dnp is as well. so is a bsn. adn is qualified to do their job, np with a masters is qualified to practice independently, etc. nobody needs a bsn or a dnp. what we need to start doing is lowering some education requirements and start to make getting basic primary care far more affordable.

how about an example of how increased education has cost the public more? i can think of 2 examples when the exact opposite happened. off of the top of my head, when physical therapists moved to a dpt and when pharamacists moved to a pharmd they did not see an increase in fee for service.

your post here just further proves my point. you think that what i mean is that nobody needs additional or heavier education. what you don't understand is that generalists don't need that much education, because they don't deal with all of these things that you mention here. i didn't say everyone was overeducated. some things might warrant the cost of extra education, but in the case of a primary care physician, it isn't warranted. furthermore, what does a bsn teach you about these typese of things that you mention here? just because and education isn't overkill, it doesn't mean that it is 2nd rate. are you saying that a nurse practitioner with a masters degree is second rate? is that what you mean? are you saying that an adn is second rate because they don't have a bsn? is that what you mean?

your post is so transparent. you call fp education overkill just to make np education seem adequate. you should have been the voice of "reason" when the idiots at the american academy of family practice required more training to be an fp. i mean it is so obvious longer training, more knowledge and more skills are just useless.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

so 3 years of training, with limited clinical hours and lack of sufficient foundational courses (pharm/path) is now the same as 7 years of training with more hours, more relevant courses and a complete lack of filler courses? now who is it who has been drinking the coolaid?

i never said it was the same, just that it is adequate. this is proven by the fact that nps go out there and do the job everyday, even independently in a large number of states. no koolaid is necessary to be able to recognize that. if you don't recognize it, then you must be the one that is drinking something, and it must be stronger than koolaid.

remember that in the last 30 years, family practice people saw that they needed more training to adequately take care of their patients so they first added a residency and then lengthened it. all without an increase in pay. so now lopping that education to less education than just medical school is sufficient?

i mean that really makes sense to you? seriously?

just because they didn't see an increase in pay doesn't mean that wasn't their motive in increasing the length of their training. they see it happen in other fields, so they try it themselves. yes, seriously, it does make perfect sense. do you really think that they lengthened their residencies solely in the interest of their patients and it had nothing at all to do with the fact that they thought that they would get more money for their additional education? of course less education is sufficient. don't give me this garbage about how they need the additional education to be able to do the job. that is ridiculous.

how about an example of how increased education has cost the public more? i can think of 2 examples when the exact opposite happened. off of the top of my head, when physical therapists moved to a dpt and when pharamacists moved to a pharmd they did not see an increase in fee for service.

thanks for playing but making stuff up doesn't work when it is proof to the contrary.

i won't honor your comment about from whence my words come with a response other than to say that you shouldn't be rude in your posts and there is no need to make personal attacks just because you have a different opinion. i can think of quite a few examples of how increased education requirements cost the public more. they generally do. when cpa's went to a 150 semester hour requirement to become certified, their starting pay went up drastically. your examples didn't require any significant amount of additional education, they just changed the degree basically in name only. don't tell me that bsns don't make more money that an adn. also, don't try to tell me that a physician doesn't make more than an np. that is the real examply we should be looking at here. i haven't made up anything. when education costs more, people want to get paid more for it. you are the one who tries to justify physicians making more money for their vastly superior education, and now you want to tell me that people don't get paid more for additional education? sounds like you are the one who is making up stuff. the proof is contrary to your arguments here 100%.

your post is so transparent. you call fp education overkill just to make np education seem adequate. you should have been the voice of "reason" when the idiots at the american academy of family practice required more training to be an fp. i mean it is so obvious longer training, more knowledge and more skills are just useless.

i couldn't agree more with your last comment with the exception of the fact that i don't need to make np education seem adequate. it already is. like i said before it is being proven out in practice everday. maybe you could open up your eyes and look around to see the thousands of nps that are able to practice everyday and do the job well. look at that and tell me that i am making things up. i need no further proof, and just because you say that you do doesn't change the facts.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Your post here just further proves my point. You think that what I mean is that nobody needs additional or heavier education. What you don't understand is that generalists don't need that much education, because they don't deal with all of these things that you mention here. I didn't say everyone was overeducated. Some things might warrant the cost of extra education, but in the case of a primary care physician, it isn't warranted. Furthermore, what does a BSN teach you about these typese of things that you mention here? Just because and education isn't overkill, it doesn't mean that it is 2nd rate. Are you saying that a nurse practitioner with a masters degree is second rate? Is that what you mean? Are you saying that an ADN is second rate because they don't have a BSN? IS that what you mean?

I am a nurse practitioner with a masters degree. If you had any idea as to what your talking about, and you obviously do not, you would know that family practice docs are the ones who see most of these complex issues from the very begining. This alone would seem to show the necessity for as much education as possible. If they're not taught about it in school, how would you expect them to diagnose it as a practicing physician? So what parts of a physician's education would you cut? pulmonary/cardiology/physiology/etc, etc? I hope that its not some vital information they need to treat you in the future! As a practicing NP, I could only wish for MORE education of my colleagues in the future, both physician and NP/PA!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I am a nurse practitioner with a masters degree. If you had any idea as to what your talking about, and you obviously do not, you would know that family practice docs are the ones who see most of these complex issues from the very begining. This alone would seem to show the necessity for as much education as possible. If they're not taught about it in school, how would you expect them to diagnose it as a practicing physician? So what parts of a physician's education would you cut? pulmonary/cardiology/physiology/etc, etc? I hope that its not some vital information they need to treat you in the future! As a practicing NP, I could only wish for MORE education of my colleagues in the future, both physician and NP/PA!

You obviously do not work in primary care, so what would you know about it? Family practice sees the most complex issues from the very beginning, however when the issues are complex, the important thing for them to know how to do is to refer those issues to a specialist. This alone would seem to show the unnecessary aspects of studying how to TREAT the complex issues. They don't TREAT those issues. Even though they study them, it is unnecessary for them to treat them, so where is the value in that? They don't even really diagnose it, they just simply have to know which specialist to refer the problem to. You are very confused about what is vital in primary care. You obviously don't understand the practice of it or how it is supposed to work.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment