PhD nurses educating DNP students

[Neuro Guy NP, DNP, PhD, APRN]

So I'm writing this mostly to start a friendly debate, but also because it may end up helpful for my academic position, since I teach in both medical and nursing schools and the university is tentatively thinking of creating a DNP program.

There are a lot of questions from folks wondering if a DNP, Ph.D, or EdD is right for them given that the focus is different. Larger universities sometimes only place nurse faculty with PhD into the tenure track "since they're the only ones qualified ". I know other faculty who think something along these lines/are stuck up about non-research doctorates. Furthermore, many times, those teaching in DNP programs are often PhD prepared nurses.

Question: given the difference in focus been the PhD and DNP, what makes the PhD prepared faculty qualified to teach DNP students, since their work is so heavily research, not evidence based?

I'm of the opinion that DNP faculty should be DNP prepared nurses, not PhD nurses, who aren't focused on the translation of research into practice. I don't think they can really relate, especially since they've likely never been in a role that would require performance of practice change projects. I'm a fan of faculty practicing what they preach. The thinking that PhD nurses are prepared to teach everything is somewhat like the old school thinking that FNP allows you to practice wherever, including the acute care environment. Thoughts?

[llg, PhD, RN]

I think you make a lot of assumptions about PhD's that aren't true. The DNP is a very new academic degree -- so much so that it is not yet stabilized. And many of the current PhD population of nurses received their doctorates in times and places in which DNP's were not available. (There was no such thing as a DNP when I got my PhD and up until quite recently, there weren't all that many programs.)

I've know many NP's, CNS's, etc. with PhD's. I myself was working as a CNS when I entered my PhD program. And as for PhD's not having experience with evidenced-based practice projects ... that's false. Yes, some PhD's focus purely on academic research -- but many of us are out "in the field" doing evidence-based practice projects. I've spent 20 years with a PhD, working for a hospital, doing EBP type projects (and a little research).

I get it that you want to have a friendly debate ... but to have a good debate or discussion, you need to get your facts right. Until you get your facts right, any debate or discussion will be meaningless.

[Neuro Guy NP, DNP, PhD, APRN]

2 hours ago, llg said:

I think you make a lot of assumptions about PhD's that aren't true. The DNP is a very new academic degree -- so much so that it is not yet stabilized. And many of the current PhD population of nurses received their doctorates in times and places in which DNP's were not available. (There was no such thing as a DNP when I got my PhD and up until quite recently, there weren't all that many programs.)

I've know many NP's, CNS's, etc. with PhD's. I myself was working as a CNS when I entered my PhD program. And as for PhD's not having experience with evidenced-based practice projects ... that's false. Yes, some PhD's focus purely on academic research -- but many of us are out "in the field" doing evidence-based practice projects. I've spent 20 years with a PhD, working for a hospital, doing EBP type projects (and a little research).

I get it that you want to have a friendly debate ... but to have a good debate or discussion, you need to get your facts right. Until you get your facts right, any debate or discussion will be meaningless.

You're right. I guess I should have phrased it differently. I would like to make the DNP curriculum more standardized and taught by DNP nurses. All my faculty in my DNP program were PhD doing pure research and hadn't been actively clinicians in quite some time and it showed. My PhD is in Neuroscience so I can't say that I have anything to compare at that level. Many of my colleagues with nursing PhDs unfortunately fall into the same issue, so I'm afraid I have a bit of recency bias.

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

I personally think that either is fine. I finished a non-clinical MSN (Informatics) and had Ph.D and DNP faculty. The best teacher we had was a Ph.D RN. He was AMAZING.

When I was researching applying to a DNP program (versus the Ph.d track) was that is was much shorter and did not require as extensive a research project as the PhD program. I am not sure exactly what the goal of a DNP is, other than having the doctorate level education for educating at the university level. For example, all out OT/PT have doctorates. That really does not appear to change their scope. The best PT I had was old school BS with all current continuing Ed.

It seems to me that the DNP program does not build on an MSN degree the way an MSN builds off the BSN (which builds off an ADN program).

Does anyone else have this perception?

[Neuro Guy NP, DNP, PhD, APRN]

2 hours ago, mmc51264 said:

I personally think that either is fine. I finished a non-clinical MSN (Informatics) and had Ph.D and DNP faculty. The best teacher we had was a Ph.D RN. He was AMAZING.

When I was researching applying to a DNP program (versus the Ph.d track) was that is was much shorter and did not require as extensive a research project as the PhD program. I am not sure exactly what the goal of a DNP is, other than having the doctorate level education for educating at the university level. For example, all out OT/PT have doctorates. That really does not appear to change their scope. The best PT I had was old school BS with all current continuing Ed.

It seems to me that the DNP program does not build on an MSN degree the way an MSN builds off the BSN (which builds off an ADN program).

Does anyone else have this perception?

It depends on your program, which is why you must be choosy. Lack of standardization drives me up a wall. I think our profession could be so much more of we could just do this one thing. Nothing wrong with more than one terminal degree - other fields have it (MD and DO, Ed.D and PhD, PsyD and PhD, DBA and PhD etc) - there just needs to be some uniformity and anything else extra should be electives.

[llg, PhD, RN]

21 hours ago, Neuro Guy NP said:

You're right. I guess I should have phrased it differently. I would like to make the DNP curriculum more standardized and taught by DNP nurses. All my faculty in my DNP program were PhD doing pure research and hadn't been actively clinicians in quite some time and it showed. My PhD is in Neuroscience so I can't say that I have anything to compare at that level. Many of my colleagues with nursing PhDs unfortunately fall into the same issue, so I'm afraid I have a bit of recency bias.

I can agree with this. Nobody who doesn't examine patients regularly should be teaching "physical assessment" or similar content in the curriculum. The qualifications and recent experience of faculty members should match what they teach. I am 100% in agreement with that principle.

But as I said in my previous post, the DNP is a young degree ... and nursing is still a relatively young academic discipline. Nursing is also a practice science, which gives it a different set of issues from the pure lab sciences. It's going to take quite a while for the discipline of nursing to mature to the point of having some of the standardization that you seek.

A lot of the most qualified faculty members to teach DNP students may be nurses with PhD's who have maintained a practice focus rather than become pure academicians.

Also, even the more mature disciplines have a lot of variation at the doctoral level. That is the nature of the doctoral level education. It is more specific and focused on the specific interests of the faculty than the more generic, entry-level curricula of Associate's and Bachelor's programs.

All of this is just more reason for each student to carefully research a variety of schools before choosing one for the doctoral-level education. I think that need for research is true at all levels -- but it gets increasingly true at the higher levels. You need to choose a school that matches your needs and philosophy. All schools will never be alike -- and shouldn't be.

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

DNPs are not necessarily seeing pts. It also depends on the goal of the DNP candidate. My friend who did her MSN-then DNP was a non-clinical MSN and her DNP research project was the effect of statins on something (I don't remember the exact title). She wanted to administration/finance. Her research was brilliant and she even was nominated, and won, some award and presented her paper at one of the UC universities.

She has since gone on to get a clinical NP as she had been working in a women's clinic and loved it. She also is an adjunct, part-time instructor at one of the local universities for their online program.

I don't think it is cut and dried that DNP=clinical and PhD=research. Most of the DNPs at my hospital are administrative. The PhDs are mostly on the university side, with the PhD teaching terminal degrees and a mix teaching MSN/ABSN.

I was in an Informatics program, I had a mix of DNP and PhD professors. It depends on the topic. Some topics are non-nursing but still important

[HOPEforRNs, ADN, BSN, MSN]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:03 PM, mmc51264 said:

I personally think that either is fine. I finished a non-clinical MSN (Informatics) and had Ph.D and DNP faculty. The best teacher we had was a Ph.D RN. He was AMAZING.

When I was researching applying to a DNP program (versus the Ph.d track) was that is was much shorter and did not require as extensive a research project as the PhD program. I am not sure exactly what the goal of a DNP is, other than having the doctorate level education for educating at the university level. For example, all out OT/PT have doctorates. That really does not appear to change their scope. The best PT I had was old school BS with all current continuing Ed.

It seems to me that the DNP program does not build on an MSN degree the way an MSN builds off the BSN (which builds off an ADN program).

Does anyone else have this perception?

I think the DNP had so much potential, but it's not there. If the goal was to make NPs better able to translate evidence into practice, sure. If the goal was to make sure APRNs actually get some hard science, more clinical hours, and more clinical knowledge to make them more on par with physicians, giant fail.

[mmc51264, BSN, MSN, RN]

Agree. I was just talking to some younger nurses and trying to explain that the DNP is really a mini-thesis defense. It's kind of like the DPT and OTD (PT/OT doctorates). My neighbor is old school PT and the very best, much better than any of the doctorate levels ones I have seen.

[Rnis, BSN, DNP, APRN, NP]

In the DNP program I am in, we have some courses with multiple instructors typically one with a PHD and a DNP.

[AtomicWoman]

On 11/17/2019 at 10:20 AM, HOPEforRNs said:

I think the DNP had so much potential, but it's not there. If the goal was to make NPs better able to translate evidence into practice, sure. If the goal was to make sure APRNs actually get some hard science, more clinical hours, and more clinical knowledge to make them more on par with physicians, giant fail.

Agree with this. I have been looking for a DNP program that will make me a better clinician. I want to take courses like super-advanced pharmacology and patho, advanced clinical decision-making, etc. I'm still looking... If anyone knows of such a DNP program, I'd love to hear about it!

[DrCOVID, DNP]

Most of my faculty were PhD. But that was likely because DNP wasn't around. We had one younger DNP fellow that taught assessment. I am pretty sure they were all nurse practitioners.