NCSBN proposes CNS no longer be considered APNs

christvs, DNP, RN, NP · Feb 26, 2006

I think it would be really sad if they did that because CNS are & should remain advanced practice nurses. They contribute a great deal to staff, patients, and others. It's so strange to me that lately there has been so much talk of revising everyone's roles and degrees, etc. What is the matter with the way things are right now?

Trauma Columnist · Feb 26, 2006

Yikes, I'd better look into this too. I graduate in May with an adult health CNS.

llg, PhD, RN · Feb 26, 2006

I became a CNS back in the days before some states required separate licensure -- and have had to live with the mess created by the different requirements set up by different states, problems with "grandfathering" for people like me whose cirricula didn't match with what was available in that state, etc.

It has been a mess and I am thrilled that the NCSBN is finally using a little common sense. Most CNS's do not practice outside the scope of nursing -- and that's what licensure should be about!

Other benefits of the "protected title" can be obtained in other ways. We should use other means to give CNS's the respect they deserve. To try to do that through separate licensure caused more problems than it solved. It also didn't really amount to anything. People who didn't fit the state's criteria for licensure (or who, like me, refused to apply for CNS licensure as a political statement) simply made up other titles. The proliferation of other, similar titles adds confusion to an already confusing marketplace of nurses with assorted credentials and letters after their names that most people (even within nursing) don't understand.

We nurses need to simplify things so that everyone (nurses, hospitals, schools, the public) can understand them and build a system of nursing care delivery that is cohesive -- not split into different groups pushing for their unique "protected title" and cirriculum, etc.

llg

Trauma Columnist · Feb 26, 2006

In Illinois, the wording for licensure is the exact same for the NP and CNS. Like another poster, our curriculum is often exact. The only difference is the clinicals and to be honest, I do clinicals right next to NPs. I am unsure of the difference some days.

SharonH, RN · Mar 2, 2006

I became a CNS back in the days before some states required separate licensure -- and have had to live with the mess created by the different requirements set up by different states, problems with "grandfathering" for people like me whose cirricula didn't match with what was available in that state, etc.
It has been a mess and I am thrilled that the NCSBN is finally using a little common sense. Most CNS's do not practice outside the scope of nursing -- and that's what licensure should be about!
Other benefits of the "protected title" can be obtained in other ways. We should use other means to give CNS's the respect they deserve. To try to do that through separate licensure caused more problems than it solved. It also didn't really amount to anything. People who didn't fit the state's criteria for licensure (or who, like me, refused to apply for CNS licensure as a political statement) simply made up other titles. The proliferation of other, similar titles adds confusion to an already confusing marketplace of nurses with assorted credentials and letters after their names that most people (even within nursing) don't understand.
We nurses need to simplify things so that everyone (nurses, hospitals, schools, the public) can understand them and build a system of nursing care delivery that is cohesive -- not split into different groups pushing for their unique "protected title" and cirriculum, etc.
llg

I agree with everything you wrote. I'm not interested in separate licensure, I don't think most CNSs are. But I resent the language which states CNSs are not advanced practice nurses. I also find it ironic since CNSs are the only (current) APRN role that has always required a master's preparation.