What is the difference between NP and DNP?

Specialties Doctoral

Published

I was looking into future possibilities through Arizona State University and noticed that all their NP programs are "DNP". Does this mean you get the title of Dr. once you get this degree vs the NP degrees?

I have a long ways to go, but I can't find the answer to this anywhere and it's confusing.

Thanks,

Amber

they should identifiy themselves as a Certified nursing assistent , they are not nurses, in the state of illinois to pose or present one as a nurse is a violation of the Nurse practice act,. I introduce myself as hi i am so and so a NP so they know that I am not an MD

you didn't read my earlier response

What if CNAs were able to take a 3 week course where they earned the title of nurse (not RN or LPN, but something else)? These CNAs would introduce themselves as nurse because they "earned it". Do you think that is fair?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
so when do we get back to the real debate here between the differences between NP and DNP lets get back on topic here

Both myself and a few others have answered this. You gain a very minimal amount of clinical knowledge/training by pursuing a DNP after an NP. The difference is really just several thousands of dollars worth of tuition and the ability to call yourself a "doctor" after a glorified MPH.

I could also repost a post I made in a different thread a loooong time ago pointing out the similarities between several DNP programs and several MPH programs if you're not entirely convinced by what wowza posted.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The comparison of Duke and Harvards programs says it all. Just look at the filler courses the dnp has to take instead of advanced science courses and course on patient management. The dnp adds nothing to the current masters level np. Can someone explain how informatics and theory of knowledge development will help me manage a kid with HUS?? It won't. The dnp is just a money maker for the universities.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ACNP, ICU.

a cna can take a 3 week course and call themselves nurses all they want, with the same stipulation they clarify their role in patient care. this is exactly what a DNP does.

when people resist something so much it always seems as if they are afraid of it. The DNP is not comming it is here. As an ARNP, i imagine other nurses would relish the chance to advance the profession and since the DNP is still in a nascent stage. this is the best time to shape it into something the profession can be proud of

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The comparison of Duke and Harvards programs says it all. Just look at the filler courses the dnp has to take instead of advanced science courses and course on patient management. The dnp adds nothing to the current masters level np. Can someone explain how informatics and theory of knowledge development will help me manage a kid with HUS?? It won't. The dnp is just a money maker for the universities.

Are you being sarcastic?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

No sarcasm intended. We're talking about the diff between np and dnp..right? The courses i listed are just a sampling of the courses that make up the dnp curric. and have zero impact on patient management. So, how is having my dnp going to help to manage complex patients? Its not and that's due to its lack of hard sciences that help us to understand how to deal with complex and not so complex disorders.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.
The comparison of Duke and Harvards programs says it all. Just look at the filler courses the dnp has to take instead of advanced science courses and course on patient management. The dnp adds nothing to the current masters level np. Can someone explain how informatics and theory of knowledge development will help me manage a kid with HUS?? It won't. The dnp is just a money maker for the universities.

The comparison between the 2 programs does say it all very clearly. There is essentially NO difference in the clinical competence between graduates of those programs when it comes to the immediate assessment and treatment of an individual patient.

However ... there is a marked difference in the education the DNP provides to prepare the practitioner for positions of healthcare leadership in which the focus is on improving care for populations. Those extra 18 credit hours that some people call "filler" or "fluff" are not really fluff at all. They provide the foundation for leadership roles that go beyond the assessment and treatment of a single patient at a time. And THAT's the main point. The DNP role is a "step up" from the Master's-prepared NP in that the DNP has received an education that prepared him/her for positions with a broader and more sophisticated focus/influence.

It's much like the difference between an ADN and a BSN, when you think about it. Both degrees prepare a new graduate to provide safe, competent care to individual patients. But the BSN sets the stage for more advanced positions with a greater focus on leadership, research, education, community health, etc. There is a similar difference between the MSN-NP, and the DNP.

Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking on that point by asking your question.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

While that is true, the dnp has/is being pushed by it's supporters as another step towards more indpendent practice. The dnp adds nothing more than the aforementioned leadership abilities to my current practice. I would and most others should expect a terminal degree to include advanced concepts that will enable the holder to expand their knowledge base with regard to what they are currently doing..managing patients. I would have zero problems with the dnp if it had those types of courses buildt in to it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
While that is true, the dnp has/is being pushed by it's supporters as another step towards more indpendent practice. The dnp adds nothing more than the aforementioned leadership abilities to my current practice. I would and most others should expect a terminal degree to include advanced concepts that will enable the holder to expand their knowledge base with regard to what they are currently doing..managing patients. I would have zero problems with the dnp if it had those types of courses buildt in to it.

I guess it boils down to how one defines "managing patients."

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The comparison between the 2 programs does say it all very clearly. There is essentially NO difference in the clinical competence between graduates of those programs when it comes to the immediate assessment and treatment of an individual patient.

However ... there is a marked difference in the education the DNP provides to prepare the practitioner for positions of healthcare leadership in which the focus is on improving care for populations. Those extra 18 credit hours that some people call "filler" or "fluff" are not really fluff at all. They provide the foundation for leadership roles that go beyond the assessment and treatment of a single patient at a time. And THAT's the main point. The DNP role is a "step up" from the Master's-prepared NP in that the DNP has received an education that prepared him/her for positions with a broader and more sophisticated focus/influence.

It's much like the difference between an ADN and a BSN, when you think about it. Both degrees prepare a new graduate to provide safe, competent care to individual patients. But the BSN sets the stage for more advanced positions with a greater focus on leadership, research, education, community health, etc. There is a similar difference between the MSN-NP, and the DNP.

Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking on that point by asking your question.

I'll agree that the the DNP's extra "fluff" prepares someone for the same kinds of things an MPH or MHA does- health policy or leadership. The problem I have is that it is being touted as a clinical doctorate and a step that brings NP education in line with MD/DO education- which it doesn't. The nursing leadership, like Mary Mundinger, is riding this as way to get better practice rights because they say it has enhanced coursework. In reality, it brings nothing clinical to the table.

Were the nursing leadership pushing for what the coursework really trains someone to do (nursing leadership, health policy etc) I don't think anyone would be arguing much and the NP and DNP could be separate entities. Students who wanted to do leadership could do the DNP and those who wanted to practice could do the NP.

Plus if the DNP is really made for leadership or policy, what was wrong with the PhD of Nursing that has been around for decades? In the end it is nothing more than a shallow political move for independence at the expense of the students. NP students now have 30-40 more credits to take of things that aren't going to prepare them for practice Quite frankly it disgusts me. Adding part of a MPH to an MSN does not make a doctorate and definitely not a clinical doctorate.

I guess it boils down to how one defines "managing patients."

I think the poster was using that term to mean being able to take care of patients medically and was alluding to the fact that instead of extra science/medical courses you have things like communication, informatics etc that add very, very little to your toolbox as a clinician.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ACNP, ICU.

Mundinger's original vision for the DNP was a clinical doctorate. if you review columbia university's curriculum for the DNP, it is more clinical focussed than other DNP programs. She is absolutely pushing for DNP independence, following her model.

When NPs wanted independent practice, people complained they were not doctorally prepared, Mundinger responded by developing a clinically focussed doctorate. Then people complained there was not a certification process for DNP, and she responded with a test developed by and using the same questions from USMLE step 3, yet people still complain. There will always be people threatened by or criticizing the advancement of DNP.

Not understanding how informatics can be applied to your practice does not attest to its usefulness, rather it demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding how to apply it. In other words, until you take the class (with the rest of the DNP courses) you simply can not know what you dont know. To say those classes are worthless and will have no affect on clinical practice without having gone through them is statement born in ignorance. (ignorance=lack of knowledge on a particular subject)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The comparison between the 2 programs does say it all very clearly. There is essentially NO difference in the clinical competence between graduates of those programs when it comes to the immediate assessment and treatment of an individual patient.

However ... there is a marked difference in the education the DNP provides to prepare the practitioner for positions of healthcare leadership in which the focus is on improving care for populations. Those extra 18 credit hours that some people call "filler" or "fluff" are not really fluff at all. They provide the foundation for leadership roles that go beyond the assessment and treatment of a single patient at a time. And THAT's the main point. The DNP role is a "step up" from the Master's-prepared NP in that the DNP has received an education that prepared him/her for positions with a broader and more sophisticated focus/influence.

It's much like the difference between an ADN and a BSN, when you think about it. Both degrees prepare a new graduate to provide safe, competent care to individual patients. But the BSN sets the stage for more advanced positions with a greater focus on leadership, research, education, community health, etc. There is a similar difference between the MSN-NP, and the DNP.

Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking on that point by asking your question.

I'm confused as to why people on this site call it a clinical doctorate then and get all up-in-arms about calling themselves "doctor" in a clinical setting. If it doesn't further your clinical knowledge, it cannot be a clinical doctorate.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment