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?
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.
That is not exactly true. Market demands have a big impact on people wanting to enter certain career fields, but as the AACN is not the governing body of any APRN group there recommendation only goes so far.
The CRNA (AANA and COA) advocated and mandated that doctorate level education would be the new entry requirement for all new CRNAs by 2025, and all current NA schools have either already switched to a entry level doctorate or are making the switch.
I am sure if the NP credentialing bodies made the same decision there would be an equal response by NP programs.
I could have come up with stupid stuff like that, but I guess my standards are higher...
This is your proof that NPs are inferior to physicians? One there isn't a separation between PAs and NPs and two a 0.3% increase in images is hardly conclusive of anything.
"Results Advanced practice clinicians and PCPs ordered imaging in 2.8% and 1.9% episodes of care, respectively. In adjusted estimates and across all patient groups and imaging services, APCs were associated with more imaging than PCPs (odds ratio [OR], 1.34 [95% CI, 1.27-1.42]), ordering 0.3% more images per episode. Advanced practice clinicians were associated with increased radiography orders on both new (OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.13-1.66]) and established (OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.24-1.43]) patients, ordering 0.3% and 0.2% more images per episode of care, respectively. For advanced imaging, APCs were associated with increased imaging on established patients (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.44]), ordering 0.1% more images, but were not significantly different from PCPs ordering imaging on new patients."
This is your proof that NPs are inferior to physicians? One there isn't a separation between PAs and NPs and two a 0.3% increase in images is hardly conclusive of anything.
"Results Advanced practice clinicians and PCPs ordered imaging in 2.8% and 1.9% episodes of care, respectively. In adjusted estimates and across all patient groups and imaging services, APCs were associated with more imaging than PCPs (odds ratio [OR], 1.34 [95% CI, 1.27-1.42]), ordering 0.3% more images per episode. Advanced practice clinicians were associated with increased radiography orders on both new (OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.13-1.66]) and established (OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.24-1.43]) patients, ordering 0.3% and 0.2% more images per episode of care, respectively. For advanced imaging, APCs were associated with increased imaging on established patients (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.44]), ordering 0.1% more images, but were not significantly different from PCPs ordering imaging on new patients."
The statistically significance is almost 30%; therefore, it's huge... As I said, it's hard to design these type of studies, hence I am hesitant to use them to make my point.
The statistically significance is almost 30%; therefore, it's huge... As I said, it's hard to design these type of studies, hence I am hesitant to use them to make my point.
Where did you get 30%, and again that isn't a direct comparison because PAs are still included.?
The difference between 2.8% and 1.9% "of patients" is actually almost 30% more mathematically...
As I said, I am hesitant to use these 'studies'(if you can call them studies)... It's not like I am going to give the MD and NP the same patient and see who can come up with the right diagnosis...
Anyway, I am done with this discussion because it's hard to compare MD and NP based on management of a couple of illnesses...
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 can't believe I'm going to respond to you in a meaningful way.
You're responding as though MDs don't use consults as well. This is absurd. Literally every provider defers to specialty consults when there is organ/organ system dysfunction when that provider feels specialty care is better for that patient. If I get afib, I want a cardiologist. How ridiculous is it to spend this whole thread decrying the effectiveness of NPs, and yet going on to further decry NPs for referring to specialties. PICK A SIDE. STICK WITH IT.
Now, later in your post, you referred to NPs generally as "they". What are your credentials? You've proven very well that you are not a nurse or in any way affiliated with nursing.
wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA
5,128 Posts
That is not exactly true. Market demands have a big impact on people wanting to enter certain career fields, but as the AACN is not the governing body of any APRN group there recommendation only goes so far.
The CRNA (AANA and COA) advocated and mandated that doctorate level education would be the new entry requirement for all new CRNAs by 2025, and all current NA schools have either already switched to a entry level doctorate or are making the switch.
I am sure if the NP credentialing bodies made the same decision there would be an equal response by NP programs.