Should FNP be required for all APN's?

Specialties NP

Published

:confused: I'm interested in becoming a Psych NP; however, numerous FNP's tell me that I should become an FNP first. Then I can treat all across the spectrum with all ages.

I am generally cautioned about narrowing my advanced practice knowledge and skills by choosing a specific track like psych, peds, or women's health.

I am told an FNP is much more marketable. Any thoughts?:confused:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.

Hello, rkmoyers and welcome to allnurses.com

Glad to have you with us.

Required? No. It is an individual choice that should be made after extensive research of the area in which the NP wishes to be employed coupled with self-interest.

Is FNP more marketable? Possibly and again, that depends on the area demand(s).

But, Family Practice is not for all, just like PNP isn't for all. I'd NEVER consider peds as APN specialty for that is just not my cup of tea, so to speak. By the same token, I'd never consider Psych NP for that is/was never my interest. That is the beauty of this profession (Advanced Practice).....many specialties to tailor to your individual interests, desires and expectations of healthcare.

I was OB-GYN for years and added FNP for better marketability. Just worked for me and in my area.

General "cautionary" advice is okay, but consider what the market will bear - check out your area and wherein your interests lie.

Enjoy the site here at allnurses.com!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Not specified.

One of the major regional hospitals in my city just fired all their FNPs due to budget cuts. Also, I have heard through various sources that California is impacted with FNPs. I think you might have the best marketability as a Geriatric or Adult NP, possibly Occupational Health NP. I myself am going the PMHNP route myself as it is what I want to do and figure I can always have a job as a nurse no matter what.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nephrology, Cardiology, ER, ICU.

Romie - like Siri said -it depends on the market where you live or if you live in an APN-poor market, are you willing to move?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Hello, rkmoyers and welcome to allnurses.com

Glad to have you with us.

Required? No. It is an individual choice that should be made after extensive research of the area in which the NP wishes to be employed coupled with self-interest.

Is FNP more marketable? Possibly and again, that depends on the area demand(s).

But, Family Practice is not for all, just like PNP isn't for all. I'd NEVER consider peds as APN specialty for that is just not my cup of tea, so to speak. By the same token, I'd never consider Psych NP for that is/was never my interest. That is the beauty of this profession (Advanced Practice).....many specialties to tailor to your individual interests, desires and expectations of healthcare.

I was OB-GYN for years and added FNP for better marketability. Just worked for me and in my area.

General "cautionary" advice is okay, but consider what the market will bear - check out your area and wherein your interests lie.

Enjoy the site here at allnurses.com!!

Peripherally involved is the concept being considered by the NCSBN.

https://www.ncsbn.org/Draft_APRN_Vision_Paper.pdf

The concept is that all they do away with CNS and all NP's are trained in a generalist manner then do additional specialist training. Basically NP training plus a residency. This is an interesting concept. Not sure where they are going to get the money to do it or get buyoff from other organizations.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Requiring you be an FNP before being a Psych APRN makes no sense to me. Why not have all FNP's become Psych NP's first so they can treat all ages who need psych care?!Pediatricians don't need to be Gasteroenterologists first. Actually I think it's just a put down of Psych Np's to say you should be an FNP first-I don't want to treat families-why be an FNP first?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Peripherally involved is the concept being considered by the NCSBN.

https://www.ncsbn.org/Draft_APRN_Vision_Paper.pdf

The concept is that all they do away with CNS and all NP's are trained in a generalist manner then do additional specialist training. Basically NP training plus a residency. This is an interesting concept. Not sure where they are going to get the money to do it or get buyoff from other organizations.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Very interesting read - glad to see they still consider us CNMs separate to some extent. I for one have no desire to have men in my scope of practice (no offense to David or any other men out there), so I wouldn't want to be forced into a FNP-style program first. They do suggest the residencies for CNMs, too, which is an interesting, but probably not viable idea.

Becki (CNM)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Very interesting read - glad to see they still consider us CNMs separate to some extent. I for one have no desire to have men in my scope of practice (no offense to David or any other men out there), so I wouldn't want to be forced into a FNP-style program first. They do suggest the residencies for CNMs, too, which is an interesting, but probably not viable idea.

Becki (CNM)

No offense, I did my OB-GYN rotation. Did some pelvics, delivered some baby's NEVER want to do that again. Glad someone likes it. Not my cup of tea:smilecoffeecup:.

The problem seems to be the overlap of CNS and NP. Some states recognize CNS as a APRN and some don't. Part of the nursing compact is to make the rules the same across all states in the compact.

You do something similar to a residency in any APRN program, you just don't get paid for it (which is probably the most descriptive factor in a residency). This is the biggest non starter here. No one shows where the money is going to come from (and they're not discussing a small amount). This would also make the clinical year full time allowing the expansion of clinical hours described in the DNP. Also the hope is that an expansion in clinical hours and pharmacology didactics will allow the compact to get rid of practice parameters that limit new grads from prescribing in some states.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The problem seems to be the overlap of CNS and NP. Some states recognize CNS as a APRN and some don't. Part of the nursing compact is to make the rules the same across all states in the compact.

You do something similar to a residency in any APRN program, you just don't get paid for it (which is probably the most descriptive factor in a residency). This is the biggest non starter here. No one shows where the money is going to come from (and they're not discussing a small amount). This would also make the clinical year full time allowing the expansion of clinical hours described in the DNP. Also the hope is that an expansion in clinical hours and pharmacology didactics will allow the compact to get rid of practice parameters that limit new grads from prescribing in some states.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Yes, I did something similar to a residency- CNM programs call it integration - it was a summer of being on call for births 24/7 and working about 80 hours each of those weeks, all while trying to pay for my child care on student loan money because working was totally out of the question. A paid residency would have been better, at least financially, for me. But I don't see it happening.

And I live in one of those bad states with the supervised practice requirement for new grads before we get prescriptive authority, so anything to improve that, I would be in favor of.

But the biggest problem I see with their "Vision Paper" is that many CNMs are going to resist NCSBN trying to make rules for us, when not all CNMs are under the authority of state nursing boards in the first place.

Becki

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Neonatal ICU (Cardiothoracic).

I don't understand what the point would be for me to have to get my FNP in order to be a NNP! I would never care for anyone over 2 y/o!!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I don't understand what the point would be for me to have to get my FNP in order to be a NNP! I would never care for anyone over 2 y/o!!!

I would agree. It all depends if that is the only thing that you ever want to do.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Up Vote Up Vote ×
:confused: I'm interested in becoming a Psych NP; however, numerous FNP's tell me that I should become an FNP first. Then I can treat all across the spectrum with all ages.

I am generally cautioned about narrowing my advanced practice knowledge and skills by choosing a specific track like psych, peds, or women's health.

I am told an FNP is much more marketable. Any thoughts?:confused:

That is stupid....listen its simple, if you want to go into Psych, get your Psych NP, dont listen to other people telling you to get your FNP first and then get you psych NP, that is a complete waste of time, arent you sick of the ivory tower? You dont learn anything in school anyway just get out there and do it....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment