Serious question-how do you explain the DNP to the average layperson?
I'm not a NP (MSN-Ed) and I am currently in an education and leadership focused DNP program. I work in nursing education and am excited about the knowledge and opportunities that my advanced studies will bring. While still evolving (and rightly so), I believe that having a terminal practice degree is a great step for nursing. My question, though, is how do you explain what this means to the layperson? I thought I knew, until this week, when I attempted to explain it to my mother-in law. She asked how school was going and then said, "So...are you going to be an NP now?" I offered that it expanded my current skills and knowledge, as well as opportunities for leadership and faculty positions. She just seemed baffled that if it wasn't "seeing patients", what was it? I also made the parallel to the PhD, but pointed out the difference. It was a pretty short conversation as she lost interest quickly...
So, how do you explain the DNP to your friends and family; especially if you are considered part of the educated but non-advanced practice group?
I was simply referring to the mandate that all APRN programs will be required to be DNP by 2025. Of course that's the last year they can be fully converted, 2015 many progressive programs have already conformed to the mandate and became DNP. I'm sure they will find a way to grandfather in the older masters prepared APRN's or at least offer tuition reimbursement or incentives to go back to school. It will probably be similar to the growing pains of ADN's/ BSN's currently.
There is no "mandate." The only group that has chosen to embrace the mandatory-doctorate concept is the CRNAs, and they have set a date of 2025. The rest of the advanced practice world is not jumping on the AACN's bandwagon (at least, not so far). Yes, plenty of schools are converting their MSN programs to dnp programs, but plenty of others haven't and have indicated they don't intend to. You might want to be sure you understand the facts before you make such sweeping and definitive statements.
It is a mandate for the CRNA's only at this point. I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear as mandate for CRNA and logic applied assumption for CRNP. Suspicious that CRNP programs seem to be progressing already into dnp programs even in 2015. I'm curious to see what 10 years will do and if the CRNA's are the pioneers I seriously doubt the other APRN's will stay behind. I know it's a touchy subject for those seeking masters only CRNP or those CRNP's who don't like the idea of younger NP's coming in with doctorates.
The diploma nurses never thought they would have to go back to school either. ADN's never thought they would need to get a BSN either.... let's see how this plays out.
*Just to be clear I'm not aware of what Midwifes are doing in regards to progressing from MSN to DNP.
I highly doubt we will ever completely replace doctors, or even come close. Where are the facts behind this? You leave out lobbing and the increasing amount of medical knowledge which cannot be provided in a 2 year part time or even 3 year education that DNPs get. Thats a laughable statement that we will replace OBGYN anesthesia and hospitalists. Especially on the OBGYN part since they do surgery. Jeez I don't know where you get your information from, must be nursing instructors who think they are actual doctors. This is a total bias and false statement lol. It really did make me lol also.
Lawyers will also love CRNPs, since as soon as babys start dying from complex diseases such as inborn errors of metabolism which were not caught by the CRNPs, the will reap the dollars and enjoy the new ferrari they got from some unprepared nurse practitioner.
As an ICU nurse, who has never had a provider role, or any real responsibility, your comments do not really mean anything. Just wait till your on the other side of the pen and chart, if that ever happens, then you may have an understanding.
It is not what we know that kills us, it is not what we know we do not know that kills us, it is what we do not know that we don't know that kills us.
It is a mandate for the CRNA's only at this point. I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear as mandate for CRNA and logic applied assumption for CRNP.
Your point seemed pretty clear; you stated, "I was simply referring to the mandate that all APRN programs will be required to be DNP by 2025," which is simply untrue. And, "logic applied assumption for CRNP"? I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but will remind you of the old cliche' about assuming anything ...
FYI, the CNM group is doing the same as the NP and CNS groups -- nothing. The NLN, the other nursing education group (besides the AACN, which started this in the first place), has even announced an official position that it is not supporting the mandatory-DNP concept.
Of course schools like the idea and (many) are converting to dnp programs -- it makes them more money, and degree inflation is always a benefit for schools. Plenty of nursing schools aren't transitioning to DNP programs (the last numbers I saw were that ~1/4 of AACNmembers have reported they have no plans to convert their MSN advanced practice programs to DNP programs). However, despite the AACN's posturing, the only professional group that has embraced the concept is the CRNA group, and, to date, no state has indicated it has any interest in or plans to start requiring a DNP for licensure.
It is also true that none of us knows what may happen in the future. However, since you brought up the ADN vs. BSN "growing pains," I'll just point out that the ANA and other professional groups in nursing have been promoting the BSN as minimum entry to practice for >40 years now, and that's no closer to happening than it was 40 years ago. The question is not just "grown," it's approaching menopause. The only US state that actually tried to implement a mandatory-BSN policy had to rescind the legislation several years later.
I highly doubt we will ever completely replace doctors, or even come close. Where are the facts behind this? You leave out lobbing and the increasing amount of medical knowledge which cannot be provided in a 2 year part time or even 3 year education that DNPs get. Thats a laughable statement that we will replace OBGYN anesthesia and hospitalists. Especially on the OBGYN part since they do surgery. Jeez I don't know where you get your information from, must be nursing instructors who think they are actual doctors. This is a total bias and false statement lol. It really did make me lol also.
Lawyers will also love CRNPs, since as soon as babys start dying from complex diseases such as inborn errors of metabolism which were not caught by the CRNPs, the will reap the dollars and enjoy the new ferrari they got from some unprepared nurse practitioner.
As an ICU nurse, who has never had a provider role, or any real responsibility, your comments do not really mean anything. Just wait till your on the other side of the pen and chart, if that ever happens, then you may have an understanding.
It is not what we know that kills us, it is not what we know we do not know that kills us, it is what we do not know that we don't know that kills us.
Another ridiculous comment from a layperson. Your comments alone give away your lack of education. I personally know multiple overall healthy mothers who used midwifes for their delivery of an uncomplicated pregnancy. I'm sure there will be some OBGYN's around for surgical and complex disease process pregnancies. CRNP's are already working as hospitalists in some facilities. As for anesthesia, I'll drop this here for your reading pleasure.
There are no differences in patient outcomes when anesthesia services are provided by Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), physician anesthesiologists, or CRNAs supervised by physicians, according to the results of a new national study conducted by RTI International. The study, titled No Harm Found When Nurse Anesthetists Work Without Supervision by Physicians,†appears in the August issue of Health Affairs.
Here is the article link just for your further education.
I'm no longer responding to your trolling comments or a few others in the forums I've noted as layperson trolls hoping to one day get into med school. I have many personal friends who are MD's and when we have discussions about the future in healthcare and DNP's they don't carry on so unprofessionally as yourself. They also value the RN's and acknowledge the invaluable role they fulfill including saving their butts many times. Your obvious disdain for the nursing profession shows through in your every post, you should hide it better in hopes of fooling somebody you're a professional nurse.
I'll no longer be reading or responding to any posts by you and a few others who offer no relevant opinions.
Your point seemed pretty clear; you stated, "I was simply referring to the mandate that all APRN programs will be required to be DNP by 2025," which is simply untrue. And, "logic applied assumption for CRNP"? I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but will remind you of the old cliche' about assuming anything ...
FYI, the CNM group is doing the same as the NP and CNS groups -- nothing. The NLN, the other nursing education group (besides the AACN, which started this in the first place), has even announced an official position that it is not supporting the mandatory-DNP concept.
Of course schools like the idea and (many) are converting to DNP programs -- it makes them more money, and degree inflation is always a benefit for schools. Plenty of nursing schools aren't transitioning to DNP programs (the last numbers I saw were that ~1/4 of AACNmembers have reported they have no plans to convert their MSN advanced practice programs to DNP programs). However, despite the AACN's posturing, the only professional group that has embraced the concept is the CRNA group, and, to date, no state has indicated it has any interest in or plans to start requiring a DNP for licensure.
It is also true that none of us knows what may happen in the future. However, since you brought up the ADN vs. BSN "growing pains," I'll just point out that the ANA and other professional groups in nursing have been promoting the BSN as minimum entry to practice for >40 years now, and that's no closer to happening than it was 40 years ago. The question is not just "grown," it's approaching menopause. The only US state that actually tried to implement a mandatory-BSN policy had to rescind the legislation several years later.
Again, it's all conjecture at this point. I'm sure if you wanted you could argue that diploma nurses are still practicing today with no change. It personally doesn't make a difference to me if CRNA's are the only APRN's who are all DNP.
If you're seriously arguing that you haven't seen a continued and aggressive push in the nursing field for advancement in education you're simply delusional.
I am a travel nurse who has been submitted to many hospitals that insist I have my BSN. Back when I was a staff nurse the administration came around and got a sign up sheet for the ADN's who were left in the hospital and "encouraged" them to enroll in a local ADN to BSN program. They even offered tuition reimbursement. Then they started firing all the LPN's and declaring they needed to go back to school to get their RN's if they wanted to work in a hospital.
We can just agree to disagree on the matter. I'll be starting a CRNA DNP program this summer so I know where my path lies, I'll be curious to see where the rest of the field ends up.
Again, it's all conjecture at this point. I'm sure if you wanted you could argue that diploma nurses are still practicing today with no change. It personally doesn't make a difference to me if CRNA's are the only APRN's who are all DNP.
If you're seriously arguing that you haven't seen a continued and aggressive push in the nursing field for advancement in education you're simply delusional.
I am a travel nurse who has been submitted to many hospitals that insist I have my BSN. Back when I was a staff nurse the administration came around and got a sign up sheet for the ADN's who were left in the hospital and "encouraged" them to enroll in a local ADN to BSN program. They even offered tuition reimbursement. Then they started firing all the LPN's and declaring they needed to go back to school to get their RN's if they wanted to work in a hospital.
We can just agree to disagree on the matter. I'll be starting a CRNA DNP program this summer so I know where my path lies, I'll be curious to see where the rest of the field ends up.
As a matter of fact, since you mention it, I work every day (on a highly specialized and prestigious service in a well-known large academic medical center) with a coworker who is a diploma grad who has never gone back to school and still has only her diploma and RN license. She is a highly valued member of our team.
I'm not delusional, and I'm well aware that many, many employers are requiring BSNs for employment. I believe that is, to some extent, a function of the recession, employment situation of the last several years, and current surplus (in many areas) of RNs -- employers can afford to be as choosy as they like. If the situation changed and there were an actual nursing shortage (which is not likely to happen, given the ridiculous number of nursing programs turning out ridiculous numbers of new grads every year), employers would drop the BSN requirement in a heartbeat.
None of that has anything to do with requiring a BSN for licensure, which is no closer to happening than it was 40 yrs ago, in any US state.
As far as I'm concerned, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion. I was just correcting your incorrect factual statement, not trying to start an argument.
some nurses think way too highly of themselves. I mean cmon when you have to resort to calling people laypersons to invalidate his or her claim you know you are in fallacy. Thats okay I'll sit here with my bigger paycheck and be happy while you waste you money on a doctorate which could just as easily been provided the same education and pay with a masters. I need to invest in colleges, they are reaping it in off of you suckers.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Another ridiculous comment from a layperson. Your comments alone give away your lack of education....
I'll no longer be reading or responding to any posts by you and a few others who offer no relevant opinions.
That's kind of a dickish thing to say. Because he's disagreeing with you, his opinion isn't relevant? He is an NP, not a layperson.
I personally know multiple overall healthy mothers who used midwifes for their delivery of an uncomplicated pregnancy.
Emphasis on UNCOMPLICATED. Not all pregnancies are uncomplicated. Not all babies come out the lady parts. The CNM will NEVER replace an OB physician. To say OB/Gyns will not exist in 20 years, to be replaced by APRNs, is ridiculous.
I try to describe it as an applied doctorate. There are other health fields with similar degrees pharmD, physical therapy, etc. I also point to the differences between like MD & PhD and describe the PhD as a research degree.
I highly doubt we will ever completely replace doctors, or even come close. Where are the facts behind this? You leave out lobbing and the increasing amount of medical knowledge which cannot be provided in a 2 year part time or even 3 year education that DNPs get. Thats a laughable statement that we will replace OBGYN anesthesia and hospitalists. Especially on the OBGYN part since they do surgery. Jeez I don't know where you get your information from, must be nursing instructors who think they are actual doctors. This is a total bias and false statement lol. It really did make me lol also.
Lawyers will also love CRNPs, since as soon as babys start dying from complex diseases such as inborn errors of metabolism which were not caught by the CRNPs, the will reap the dollars and enjoy the new ferrari they got from some unprepared nurse practitioner.
As an ICU nurse, who has never had a provider role, or any real responsibility, your comments do not really mean anything. Just wait till your on the other side of the pen and chart, if that ever happens, then you may have an understanding.
It is not what we know that kills us, it is not what we know we do not know that kills us, it is what we do not know that we don't know that kills us.
1. Anesthesia is a whole different animal than any other APRN profession. Nurse anesthetists have been around almost 100 years longer than any other APRN and in that time period nurse anesthetists have maintained the training and ability to function independently.
It wasn't until the 1950-60's when billing for anesthesia as a separate entity did the number and role of anesthesiologists greatly expand. The whole reason that nurses first started doing anesthesia was because the physicians at that time were killing too many patients d/t a lack of interest in doing anesthesia.
2. There isn't one outcome study that I know of comparing physicians to APRNs where physicians have superior outcomes.
3. The lawyer comment is way out of line with reality. Do you know that of all the specialities CRNAs cost for Liability Insurance, no matter the practice type, has went down? Where it gets complicated is when there is a local or state policy that requires "supervision" of APRNs. Lawyers will use these policies to throw doubts on the ability of APRNs in order to get a judgement in their favor whether their statements are true or not.
4. APRNs or any provider for that matter do not need to know everything or are even expected to know everything. The most important thing to know is how to practice safely and when to consult the appropriate speciality/provider/colleague etc. That consult can be a physician, a specialist (physician or APRN), or just another colleague/APRN.
IMHO if an APRN thinks they need a physician to provide safe care for their patients then shouldn't be an APRN.
elkpark
14,633 Posts
There is no "mandate." The only group that has chosen to embrace the mandatory-doctorate concept is the CRNAs, and they have set a date of 2025. The rest of the advanced practice world is not jumping on the AACN's bandwagon (at least, not so far). Yes, plenty of schools are converting their MSN programs to dnp programs, but plenty of others haven't and have indicated they don't intend to. You might want to be sure you understand the facts before you make such sweeping and definitive statements.