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?
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Trying to compare costs between APRN school and medical school will never be a fair comparison since medical school and residency are highly subsidized, physicians in general make more than most APRNs, and if they choose to physicians have a larger number of ways to have their debt forgiven.
APRNs are mainly self supported (I understand this is the crux of your argument), but in most APRN programs APRN students can and do continue to work full time off setting a lot of the expense of going to school.
The cost is almost solely on the APRN not the healthcare system so it has little to no effect on the cost of healthcare if a couple of semesters are added to an APRN program. The only way the DNP is going to effect the cost of healthcare is if the market of APRNs decrease either through toughening of requirements or the cost of attending becomes too cost prohibitive for most nurses. The only other option is if APRNs formed a large enough union to demand larger salaries, which would be double edged sword.
The point about APRN programs being designed to be done while continuing to work is a good one and one that would seriously affect the cost / benefit calculation. At least for NPs. I haven't seen very many CRNA students picking up shifts as an ICU RN while in school they way I do with NP students.
I don't get how the subsidies of medical education make any difference to the individual who is making a decision about a potential career path. Cost to become a physician is going to be "X" and to become and APRN is going to be "Y". This needs to be measured against potential compensation and opportunity cost.
Such study is difficult to design in the first place... Claiming that there is equal outcome when HTN, DM are managed by NP vs. MD to imply that MD/DO = NP is ludicrous...
You know that as a CRNA... Seriously!
I know that physician and physician wannabes have been using that argument ever since they could not come up with any study to validate their own "superiority".
What I know as a CRNA is that I have been functioning independently without supervision ever since I graduated CRNA school with excellent patient outcomes.
I have watched my MDA colleagues skills deteriorate because they thought they needed to be constantly outside the OR to work as floor runners/consultants or in administration.
Don't delude yourself or others into thinking that the most well funded medical PACs in existence couldn't come up with and fund a large scale RCT if they wanted to, and what end point would satisfy you mortality rates since proper chronic disease management doesn't work for you.
The point about APRN programs being designed to be done while continuing to work is a good one and one that would seriously affect the cost / benefit calculation. At least for NPs. I haven't seen very many CRNA students picking up shifts as an ICU RN while in school they way I do with NP students.
I don't get how the subsidies of medical education make any difference to the individual who is making a decision about a potential career path. Cost to become a physician is going to be "X" and to become and APRN is going to be "Y". This needs to be measured against potential compensation and opportunity cost.
Texas Christain University NA program offers the first couple of semesters, which are all non-clinical, online to allow their SRNAs continue to work. I think with the mandatory DNP and mandatory 36 months that go along with the DNP/DNAP programs there will be more programs that offer all the non-clinical classes online and front loaded in order to allow their students to continue to work a little while longer.
I think if I told an APRN student that they would get paid 40-50k while doing clinicals instead of paying to do clinicals that would make a huge difference in costs.
The overall pay to cost ratio for physicians versus APRNs are almost always going to be higher.
You can justify not getting a DNP anyway you want, but the curriculum and the requirements for APRNs has been steadily increasing. The DNP just takes a proactive stance and provides for more doctoral prepared nurses now instead of waiting decades to address the problem.
I know that physician and physician wannabes have been using that argument ever since they could not come up with any study to validate their own "superiority".
What I know as a CRNA is that I have been functioning independently without supervision ever since I graduated CRNA school with excellent patient outcomes.
I have watched my MDA colleagues skills deteriorate because they thought they needed to be constantly outside the OR to work as floor runners/consultants or in administration.
Don't delude yourself or others into thinking that the most well funded medical PACs in existence couldn't come up with and fund a large scale RCT if they wanted to, and what end point would satisfy you mortality rates since proper chronic disease management doesn't work for you.
Your point is since there is a study that shows the management of HTN, DM and dyslipidemia b/t MD/DO vs. NP is equal; therefore, their capability in term of practicing medicine (or nursing) is the same. I would like to think that since these are the 3 diseases these people manage:sarcastic:...
Your point is since there is a study that shows the management of HTN, DM and dyslipidemia b/t MD/DO vs. NP is equal; therefore, their capability in term of practicing medicine (or nursing) is the same. I would like to think that since these are the 3 diseases these people manage:sarcastic:...
I am saying what I have always stated that no matter the defined criteria that APRNs show equatable outcomes to their physician counterparts in similar situations, and with all the resources available to the most well funded and powerful medical PACs in the world there has not been a study yet to disprove that fact. Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review. - PubMed - NCBI
Since you still can provide no peer reviewed scientific research to the contrary I guess we must conclude you either don't know how or that my statement about equatable outcomes is correct.
written by nurses in a journal for nursing will a small sample size and too many variables.
Science obviously.
Plus how do you control for all of the consults? I mean really? It isn't like the care is totally the PCP, as far as we know they simply toss them some keflex for a sore toe and throw the rest of the work to the specialists.
I would agree that crnas overall have the same patient outcomes, but not nurse practitioners. Also, nurse practitioners (some of them) tend to order more tests and do many unneeded referrals. At least while they are still learning anyway.
OH EM GE your P wave looks different. I think you need to go see the electro over at the hospital 1000 miles away to make sure your not about to fibb out on us baby.
I mean just look at all the posts on here about nurse practitioners who can't even read a single EKG... and are done with school.
Everybody thinks I'm bashing nurse practitioners, but no, I'm bashing the education. its too easy. too too too easy, and the DNP does not address that problem. It is just more DOLLARS for the colleges.
Our credentialing agents are raking in the DOLLARZ from these skanky for profits and its gonna kill our reputation.
You think the ama is money hungry, just look at our nursing agencies. Bunch of old hags swimming in our dollars writing flabby studies that don't mean squat.
I am saying what I have always stated that no matter the defined criteria that APRNs show equatable outcomes to their physician counterparts in similar situations, and with all the resources available to the most well funded and powerful medical PACs in the world there has not been a study yet to disprove that fact. Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review. - PubMed - NCBI
Since you still can provide no peer reviewed scientific research to the contrary I guess we must conclude you either don't know how or that my statement about equatable outcomes is correct.
I am a Uk nurse (BSc) and have a chronic illness. My care is managed by both a CNS and medical staff. I dont know what post grad qualifications the nurses have, but they are fabulous in helping me manage my condition. I get more time and their approach is holistic. So a huge thank you to all CNS, however they are educated.
Specializes in Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Nursing.
Ya I know that but it doesn't matter to the point I am making. When one is look at the investment they must personally make in time and money into a career path what matters is how much that individual most invest vs the pay back. We all know of medical school grads who graduate with a quarter million or more in debt and are forced into specialty practice to pay it back. Many can't afford to become primary care physicians. We all expect that (usually) a physician will make more than an NP. The NP has been able to accept lower compensation because they invested less in their preparation. Historically and undergrad degree and two years of grad school. Now that that same grads school is being increased to 3 or even 4 years, and medical school is being shortened (in at least some programs) to 3 years, the calculation will be different that it was in the past.
5 years ago I attended an information day for a small, private Catholic college's masters level FNP program. One of the attendees asked if there were plans in the future to make the current MSN FNP program into a DNP. The speaker was adamant that they would never do that. First that college doesn't currently grant any doctorate level degrees. Her main point was that the FNP was supposed to be a cost effective provider of high quality health care. The school's mission included service to poor and underserved populations. They see keeping the cost of producing a provider lower as one of the keys to their mission. She also said that if at some future date a DNP was mandated that the school was considering scrapping it's NP program and starting a PA program instead. I know some things have changes since then but I appreciated her point.
This is a good business example of how current markets dictate products (i.e. programs offered). The director of my MSN program told me that she has heard of a couple of programs that changed from MSN to offering a DNP only and had to change back because of lack of interest/students (they only had a single student join!). They had an entire faculty of DNP prepared professors sitting idle all the while costing the university professor comparative salaries. So in such a case it does not matter what an professional organization mandates, if the numbers don't pencil out then the program won't survive and produce DNPs.
written by nurses in a journal for nursing will a small sample size and too many variables.
Science obviously.
Plus how do you control for all of the consults? I mean really? It isn't like the care is totally the PCP, as far as we know they simply toss them some keflex for a sore toe and throw the rest of the work to the specialists.
I would agree that crnas overall have the same patient outcomes, but not nurse practitioners. Also, nurse practitioners (some of them) tend to order more tests and do many unneeded referrals. At least while they are still learning anyway.
OH EM GE your P wave looks different. I think you need to go see the electro over at the hospital 1000 miles away to make sure your not about to fibb out on us baby.
I mean just look at all the posts on here about nurse practitioners who can't even read a single EKG... and are done with school.
Everybody thinks I'm bashing nurse practitioners, but no, I'm bashing the education. its too easy. too too too easy, and the DNP does not address that problem. It is just more DOLLARS for the colleges.
Our credentialing agents are raking in the DOLLARZ from these skanky for profits and its gonna kill our reputation.
You think the ama is money hungry, just look at our nursing agencies. Bunch of old hags swimming in our dollars writing flabby studies that don't mean squat.
wake up people your being HAD
Then provide some objective data and explain why the most well funded medical PACs have been unable to fund or find one study that shows better outcomes when delivered by physicians.
Then provide some objective data and explain why the most well funded medical PACs have been unable to fund or find one study that shows better outcomes when delivered by physicians.
Yes, given the time, effort, and money that physicians and their lobbyists in many states have put into attempting to control and limit nursing practice, one would think that, if it were possible to demonstrate that advance practice nurses are providing inadequate or unsafe care, they would be all over that, and waving the studies in everyone's faces. So, where's the literature?? No one is stopping them from doing the studies.
PMFB-RN, RN
5,351 Posts
The point about APRN programs being designed to be done while continuing to work is a good one and one that would seriously affect the cost / benefit calculation. At least for NPs. I haven't seen very many CRNA students picking up shifts as an ICU RN while in school they way I do with NP students.
I don't get how the subsidies of medical education make any difference to the individual who is making a decision about a potential career path. Cost to become a physician is going to be "X" and to become and APRN is going to be "Y". This needs to be measured against potential compensation and opportunity cost.