When?

sserrn, BSN · Jul 2, 2010

In brief, the ANA strongly encourages the DNP to be the entry-level degree for APNs by 2015. This will happen at some schools; it will not at others. The ANA cannot actually require this to happen, so it simply won't at many (most?) schools for quite a while after 2015.

sandnnw, BSN, MSN, EMT-B, APRN · Jul 2, 2010

As of 1985, I am still waiting for the BSN to be "required."

elkpark · Jul 2, 2010

It's not the ANA, it's the AACN (American Association of Colleges of Nursing) that is pushing this. There is no requirement and no big move toward making the DNP a requirement, apart from enthusiasm about this from a few academic nursing organizations. The AACN can't even make its own member schools do anything -- as of the AACN's latest update on their website, >25% of their member schools that have advanced practice graduate programs have, so far, no plans to convert from MSNs to DNPs. The NLN, another important academic nursing organization, just released a report this week not supporting the mandatory-DNP proposal.

And keep in mind that there is a big difference between education and licensure. As sandnnw notes, there have been people and groups within nursing pushing to make the BSN the mandatory minimum preparation for licensure for >30 years, and they're no closer to making that happen than they were 30 years ago. Making this mandatory for licensure would involve all the state legislatures jumping on the bandwagon, and I don't really see that happening any time soon. Too many players (inc. all the non-nurse players), too many conflicting agenda. Don't hold your breath. :) It may eventually happen somewhere down the road, but I don't think it will be any time soon ...

prairienp · Jul 2, 2010

it's not the ana, it's the aacn (american association of colleges of nursing) that is pushing this. there is no requirement and no big move toward making the dnp a requirement, apart from enthusiasm about this from a few academic nursing organizations. the aacn can't even make its own member schools do anything -- as of the aacn's latest update on their website, >25% of their member schools that have advanced practice graduate programs have, so far, no plans to convert from msns to dnps. the nln, another important academic nursing organization, just released a report this week not supporting the mandatory-dnp proposal.
and keep in mind that there is a big difference between education and licensure. as sandnnw notes, there have been people and groups within nursing pushing to make the bsn the mandatory minimum preparation for licensure for >30 years, and they're no closer to making that happen than they were 30 years ago. making this mandatory for licensure would involve all the state legislatures jumping on the bandwagon, and i don't really see that happening any time soon. too many players (inc. all the non-nurse players), too many conflicting agenda. don't hold your breath. :) it may eventually happen somewhere down the road, but i don't think it will be any time soon ...

i would add nonpf to the aacn along with aanp, these three organizations are by far the most influential in np education. i would also add ancc who suggested they are also on board in support of the dnp. comparing the bsn requirement to the dnp requirement is apples to oranges. comparing an entry level expectation to advanced practice isn't working. when this comparison is used i wonder why don't posts also discuss the progression to the master's requirement for advanced practice in 1992? in the mid 80s when the movement towards the masters requirement for nps started, we heard the same arguments. at that time only one state had just required the bsn as entry level for rn. numerous ad and diploma prepared nps said the masters will "never" be required, using the same bsn argument. what are those bsn prepared nps saying now when they try and work in another state that requires the masters degree, they are locked in to the state where they were grandfathered in as a np.

talk to any of the faculty who attended the nonpf conference in washington dc in 2010 and ask if they think the dnp will happen. these are the faculty who dictate the curriculums in all the np programs in the us. talk to the leaders of the aanp and see what they think. i know i am currently telling all interested students to pursue the dnp, i am telling them to look at when they plan on being done. if they plan on graduating in 2015 they should plan on having the dnp when they are done in 2015 or they may be left practicing in one of the few starts that don't require certification.

greenfiremajick · Jul 2, 2010

Thanks for the replies, you guys. I am just beginning my nursing journey and I was having a hard time deciding between HC admin, HC IT, or NP. In my heart, I know I would prefer NP, but funds and time are limited somewhat. I dunno if we will ever get back to a good enough economy, that an employer would be willing to pay for furthering my education, so I am just expecting and accepting for there to be no educational financing help...If I find an employer that is willing to help w/ed, then so much the better!

sandnnw, BSN, MSN, EMT-B, APRN · Jul 3, 2010

Prairie, you have some valid points. I myself am seriously considering the DNP, having a wee bit of desire to lean toward more academic involvement later in my career.

I'm not so sure of your "apples to oranges" analogy though. I think its more different types of apples, and an example of "we" in nursing having trouble getting it together. For example, I'm sure all the other healthcare disciplines tend to "scratch their heads" when it comes to reviewing our methods/routes for education, licensure and certification. Hoop after hoop, take this, pass that, and our CRAZY alphabet soup, in which, the public (and most of our peers) has absolutely no idea who or what we are.

Now, some would say, this is actually growth/development of a profession (aka pain) that maybe one day will shake itself out. Who knows. My point is, we need to start coming together and quit the splintering of the profession/sub-specialties. I had no idea until entering grad school of the AANP. After careful thought, I chose to sit for both exams and now I read where, upon graduation with a DNP, I can actually sit for ANOTHER exam to prove competency. Hmmmm...when will the madness end?

It's way past time for the BSN (states will freak), and the DNP seems a logical choice (although I hope with more clinical hours). But, unless *we* get it together (NLN *stops* accrediting AD/SN programs) and design our career paths to be logical/seamless/plotable, it appears to me we are just going to be spinning our wheels for decades (as with the oranges). :twocents:

Advanced Practice Columnist / Guide · Jul 4, 2010

Prairie, you have some valid points. I myself am seriously considering the DNP, having a wee bit of desire to lean toward more academic involvement later in my career.
I'm not so sure of your "apples to oranges" analogy though. I think its more different types of apples, and an example of "we" in nursing having trouble getting it together. For example, I'm sure all the other healthcare disciplines tend to "scratch their heads" when it comes to reviewing our methods/routes for education, licensure and certification. Hoop after hoop, take this, pass that, and our CRAZY alphabet soup, in which, the public (and most of our peers) has absolutely no idea who or what we are.
Now, some would say, this is actually growth/development of a profession (aka pain) that maybe one day will shake itself out. Who knows. My point is, we need to start coming together and quit the splintering of the profession/sub-specialties. I had no idea until entering grad school of the AANP. After careful thought, I chose to sit for both exams and now I read where, upon graduation with a DNP, I can actually sit for ANOTHER exam to prove competency. Hmmmm...when will the madness end?
It's way past time for the BSN (states will freak), and the DNP seems a logical choice (although I hope with more clinical hours). But, unless *we* get it together (NLN *stops* accrediting AD/SN programs) and design our career paths to be logical/seamless/plotable, it appears to me we are just going to be spinning our wheels for decades (as with the oranges).

I'm in agreement with Prairie's apples to oranges analogy. I just don't see the parallel betwen the ADN vs BSN debate and MS/MSN vs DNP debate. The former involves different types of schools offering different types of nursing programs. 4-year degree granting institutions obviously have been pushing the BSN agenda. However, junior colleges have a lot of pull in the community as a whole and it is not going to be an easy task to disenfranchise the larger population of nursing program grads from junior colleges and put these colleges out of the business of producing future nurses.

The MS/MSN vs DNP debate involves the very same institutions that offer graduate programs in nursing. I see it being easier for grad schools to change a degree from the master's level and call it a doctoral degree by adding additional credits. What I am hoping to get some explanation on is why 25% of AACN member institutions are holding out and not getting into the DNP game. Is it a matter of principle for some? (especially big name schools with a huge research reputation (UCLA, UCSF, Penn, U Mich, Yale) while some of the other big name schools have jumped on the bandwagon (Columbia, U Washington, UVa). I also notice that some schools that weren't big on PhD programs in nursing were the quickest ones to crank out the DNP.

core0 · Jul 4, 2010

I'm in agreement with Prairie's apples to oranges analogy. I just don't see the parallel betwen the ADN vs BSN debate and MS/MSN vs DNP debate. The former involves different types of schools offering different types of nursing programs. 4-year degree granting institutions obviously have been pushing the BSN agenda. However, junior colleges have a lot of pull in the community as a whole and it is not going to be an easy task to disenfranchise the larger population of nursing program grads from junior colleges and put these colleges out of the business of producing future nurses.
The MS/MSN vs DNP debate involves the very same institutions that offer graduate programs in nursing. I see it being easier for grad schools to change a degree from the master's level and call it a doctoral degree by adding additional credits. What I am hoping to get some explanation on is why 25% of AACN member institutions are holding out and not getting into the DNP game. Is it a matter of principle for some? (especially big name schools with a huge research reputation (UCLA, UCSF, Penn, U Mich, Yale) while some of the other big name schools have jumped on the bandwagon (Columbia, U Washington, UVa). I also notice that some schools that weren't big on PhD programs in nursing were the quickest ones to crank out the DNP.

Actually there are quite a few schools that won't be able to move to the DNP. Some of them are state schools which require board of education approval for new programs. In these economic times how does a school justify an increased degree (cost to student and program) that does the same thing? Other programs will not be able to find doctorally prepared instructors (or be unable to pay for them). For these programs there is a tremendous cost to get their instructors to a doctoral level. And for what benefit? This is the primary reason the NLN has not supported the DNP. Traditionally the The NLN got its start certifying the diploma programs while the CCNE did graduate and bachelors programs. They both retain their respective biases. If you wonder why some of the big names (especially the UC programs) are not going to the DNP look at how post graduate education is financed in the US these days. Given California's spending on higher education they are probably looking at hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in losses to the department if they make the move.

David Carpenter, PA-C

Advanced Practice Columnist / Guide · Jul 4, 2010

Actually there are quite a few schools that won't be able to move to the DNP. Some of them are state schools which require board of education approval for new programs. In these economic times how does a school justify an increased degree (cost to student and program) that does the same thing? Other programs will not be able to find doctorally prepared instructors (or be unable to pay for them). For these programs there is a tremendous cost to get their instructors to a doctoral level. And for what benefit? This is the primary reason the NLN has not supported the DNP. Traditionally the The NLN got its start certifying the diploma programs while the CCNE did graduate and bachelors programs. They both retain their respective biases. If you wonder why some of the big names (especially the UC programs) are not going to the DNP look at how post graduate education is financed in the US these days. Given California's spending on higher education they are probably looking at hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in losses to the department if they make the move.
David Carpenter, PA-C

I see your point with the UC system (which I currently work for). California's state funded institutions of higher learning (including the CSU's) seem to be more centrally managed as a system. I didn't see the same scenario in Michigan where the state ducational system that supported the state funded universities are being governed independently of each other. At least four state uni's there have transitioned to the DNP but the unofficial word is the main campus of the Univ of Michigan is resisting because of their strong research tradition and their long-standing PhD program in nursing.

sandnnw, BSN, MSN, EMT-B, APRN · Jul 7, 2010

Back to the oranges...

My point being, there are so many folks we have to TRY and get to the table. I had a few minutes this morning, so I tried to look up all the graduate schools in my state using google. Impossible, never could get a comprehensive list, although I know if I use the state website, it can be done. Why is this? Did a little more digging. Reason being, splintering. About half the schools are accredited by the NLN, the other half, AACN. Hmmm...so the NLN is against the 2015 date and the AACN is for it. There in, is part of the problem.

Many of the board (Deans) at the NLN already offer the DNP. But, I believe they recognize that several of their member institutions are going to need more time to transition from the MS to the DNP. Even the CRNAs recognize that their members, some of who are grandfathered 2/4yr prepared, just need more time, adopting the 2025 time frame. I did not take the time to look up NCC, PNCB or ACNM.

I'm also thinking about the local, smaller graduate schools around me, those who do NOT offer a PhD/ND/DN/DNS option. I looked at their faculty preparation, pithy, its going to take a several years to get up and running or rely heavily on adjunct faculty, which, for a serious doctoral program is just not going to cut it (relying on their own graduate pool?).

Again, in all fairness, the 2015 date was born during a time of relative economic stability. Today, however, some graduate schools are probably weighing the DNP option, faculty hiring, facilities upgrade, competitiveness, etc. I know if I were a dean, NLN accredited, with a shrinking endowment and in this economy and having other DNP schools within walking distance of my campus, I'd think twice about starting up the program (vs remaining an MSN program, pre-doctorate feeder).

My state offers loan repayment for a nursing faculty slot. I wonder what their take is on 2015? I noticed my state's flagship university (AACN) has stopped offering MSNs. While the other state school, just a few blocks away (AACN) has NO mention of the DNP on their website, no mention on their mission, vision, goals, nor on their "strategic plan" document. Again, faculty are mostly MSNs.

I'm beginning to see the NLNs point. Time people, we need more time. And, I guess the original analogy may have been a bit weak, but, I tend to like apples. 1985, 2015? Dates come, dates go...