inthesticks

An excellent reply; I like how you think. Which made me think.... hmmmmm You are right. So maybe its not such a bad thing after all. And yes, I admit, I didn't study the NONPF, AACN positions and statements to the depth that I could have. So, after reviewing all of that stuff, I could begin to see some structure to the DNP plan. However, I sure wish post-NP DNP programs had more medically oriented courses such as histology, radiology, and more in the trenches kind of stuff. Not that I don't get this kind of stuff at work every day anyway. And this still does not answer the question as to why so many NPs lament the curriculum of current DNP programs - who consider them to be clinically weak. Just search this forum and a few others. Of course, its not fair for me to whine about that; since I already got the NP portion out of the way; and now need to get the more leadership/systems improvement/outcomes management stuff under my belt. But wait! I already had leadership, health finance, health economics, systems improvement, and outcomes management during my MSN. How many more times do I have to take this stuff? Great reply though, thanks!

I am forever correcting my staff; when they say that "yes the doctor can see you" or "yes there is a doctor here." I always makes sure that patients know that I am a nurse practitioner. Even on forms where they have a block saying "physician's signature," I cross it out and write "nurse practitioner." This is a major pet peeve of mine. Not being anal about this can easily lead to serious legal problems. Same goes for non-nurses. It is incorrect for non-nurses to refer to themselves as or be referred to as "doctor so and so's nurse" or "nurse call line one" and a non-nurse picks up the phone to answer. I used to hear this all the time; and have gone to great lengths to have this cease - with great success. I was at a recent NP conference and the consensus was that doctorate prepared NPs should introduce themselves like this in a clinical setting: "hello, I'm doctor so and so, I'm a nurse practitioner." For some strange reason, I'm one of those NPs who will pursue a DNP. I will not refer to myself as "doctor so and so" in a clinical setting (if I survive the DNP). No way; confuses patients too much. "But I thought I was seeing a real doctor," proclaimed the plaintiff. I'll save that title for when I go into academia (if I ever do).

Thanks for the reply nursetim. I caught the sarcasm :loveya:. Many of my colleagues are PAs; and we give each other a hard time daily. A great bunch of folks! I appreciate your Duke assessment. Man, its just tough to figure out which online program to go to. They all seem so weak clinically speaking. I want a program that will make me a better clinician. Maybe, I better wait and see what happens; let the smoke settle.

Thanks for the reply nursetim! I caught the sarcasm. Many of my colleagues are PAs; we give each other a hard time all the time! They are a great bunch of folks. I appreciate your Duke assessment!

Anyone here in the Duke DNP program? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it? I'm considering Duke for its proximity, online format, and coolness factor. Thanks!

There are a few things that I find weak about many DNP programs. One is that the curriculum in most programs is rather weak - clinically speaking; especially for those of us who are already practicing NPs. Looking around at most of the programs shows that the focus of the DNP is on policy development, leadership, systems improvement, economics, finance, and a few other similar courses. Now, evidence based practice, biostatistics, and outcomes management are good courses for a clinician. However, the former do not make me a better clinician. I have read several forums about the DNP; and it seems that many practicing clinicians are not yet sold on the idea. How will the DNP make us better clinicians? I wonder, how many already working NPs are going to benefit from the current curriculum that predominates the DNP? I also remember that NPs were created to fill a gap in the physician shortage. So, before we know it, aspiring students will have to get a DNP before they can practice as an NP. With nursing school enrollments dropping, and the number of available PhDs to be nursing instructors dropping, what will happen to the number of NPs coming out to the field? Will this extra time, money, effort, and cost create a drop in the number of NPs? Will the gap we were designed to fill become wider now? I would say, where I am at, that I do about 85% of what a physician does, but get paid about 40% of one. Hey, that's fine with me, I am one who would never imagine that an NP could replace an MD. Here's what I got: 4 year BSN + 2 year MSN = 6 years. My colleagues: 4 years undergraduate + 4 years of medical school + 1 year of internship + 3 years of residency = 12 years. Residents don't get paid squat either. I digress... will the DNP arise in the stake holders a sense that we are more competent as NPs than us board certified ones are now? Thusly, motivating a significant pay increase for DNPs? This is truly a fascinating time to be a nurse; lots of evolution and change, lots of new ideas, and lots of conflicting interests. But I see what lies ahead, and despite my personal thoughts about the DNP, I'm going to get it. Sorry about my looonnnnngggggg meandering aimless post. Long live nurses!