nitenurse

Sure am and have been for years; I started in a level 1 trauma center ER and went from there. And I'm not following the rest of your statement. I asked questions that were and still not have been answered, however, you stated I dodged answers. . ..to what? my own questions? And the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're going with that so it may be weird how people who haver never done the job defend it with the most bizarre justifications, however, I am not one of them.

There is quite a bit missing from that broad critique. Are these new graduates? What is the population focus? Bloated with what? certifications? If a NP/AAP doesn't fit the bill as you claim, then why not just hire an MD to fill the void since clearly an NP wouldn't cut it. It sounds like a square peg in a round hole if your committee keeps trying to fill a position with no success -that should be the embarrassing part.

1. Seeing them and treating them are two different things. They see them to refer them so I don't count that as an actionable item since nothing diagnostically significant was performed. The exception would be the ER. 2. Yes, I sure do. I believe the thinking was save the actually sick people (I.e rare conditions, cancers, etc.) for the individuals with all of those years of schooling. Again, for the type of population that fits within the scope of practice for the NP, I don't see how adding more schooling and training will improve outcomes in any measurable form.

Then why bother responding? Find your previous post and copy and paste if you feel that strongly about it otherwise read and keep going. . . . Which they absolutely do, however, when you look at the data, those graduates no better than ones that went through the minimums. There are a number of similar studies in the MD space when the question was asked does it make a difference which medical school one attends.

No, I did not say that, imply that or anything close to it. I stated that minimum standards are set by nursing boards as demonstrated here: And the licensing boards determine what is easy is since it is subjective term. Anything task is easy if you know how to do it or have a natural knack for it. Take a math savant, they have natural affinity for completing what can be considered complex math with little to no effort -proper training and experience is not necessary to determine what is easy in this situation.

Each credential has its own standards, however, the a lot of the posters here are pointing finger at the schools for setting the 500 minimum clinical hour and its not the school, its the board that sets that.

Yes, I know. I just used this as example. I didn't have time to dig through the COA document to look for the specific guidance. The whole point of the mid-levels was so that the MDs can concentrate on patient care worthy of their long schooling. That does not make one better than the other, it just made sense from a financial perspective. https://www.coacrna.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guidelines-for-Counting-Clinical-Experiences-Jan-2021.pdf

Perhaps but that is any specialty in any discipline. There are hospitals and LTCs that will hire new nurse grads, put them through their 'boot camp' and send them on their way. Are they poorly educated? I don't think so just inexperienced. But this was the same thinking for MDs and we how that happened. They are in school for a decade and still have to pay through the nose for malpractice insurance. So, where is the line drawn? I was talking about NPs. .. .

Maybe but the scope of practice between the two are vastly different. Increasing the amount of hours and education defeats the purpose and point of a mid-level practitioner.

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

The average number of clinical hours for CRNAs are a bit lower (9300 sounds closer to anesthesiologist), however, they do depend on the school: https://www.nursing.arizona.edu/academics/doctor-nursing-practice-DNP/specialties/nurse-anesthesia https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/practice-aana-com-web-documents-(all)/professional-practice-manual/standards-for-nurse-anesthesia-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=e00049b1_20

Actually its not that number comes from the states' respective boards of nursing: you can more than the minimum but that would have no bearing on licensing.

I'd say so. A lot of folks are comparing MD training to NP training and those two are apples and oranges. NP only has one population focus whereas MD is the spectrum. An MD will spend 160 hours on a specific population the first year of medical school and never re-visit because they are rotating the next treatment group. The requirements (the 500 minimum hours a lot posters are complaining about) are state-specific and they are dictated by the respective boards of nursing, not the schools:

A lot of folks are saying that but not saying what better looks like

Yep, when you submit your paperwork to the board of nursing, your program and treatment population has to be in alignment. You can't do 500 hours in pediatrics and tell them you want to do adult gerontology. And those requirements are state-specific: