Where is the DNP at in terms of being required?

Published

I heard that the DNP was going to be required for all nurse practitioners by 2015. However, I don't know how factual that is. When my aunt was in nursing school, they said the exact same thing about all RNs being required to have bachelor degrees, but that obviously STILL hasn't happened and that was 30 some years ago.

I am graduating in March with my BA and planning to enter a 2nd degree accelerated BSN program. My plan is to become a Physician Assistant, but PAs aren't used at all in the area where I am from. If I end up staying here or plans change, I may consider an NP program because I still have a lot of prerequisites left for PA and it might not be feasible depending on where my life is. Anyways - I have done a lot of thinking and I would be happier with PA, but if the cards fell in such a way that I ended up going NP, I would not regret the decision and I would be happy with my career.

My question, however, is when (if ever) will a DNP be required? If a DNP becomes standard, I will, with 100% certainty, NOT become a nurse practitioner. I have looked at several DNP programs and they are A JOKE. They are a combination of a M.Ed, MBA, and MPH. Where is the science? Where is the clinical hands on patient care experience? Even the AMA things it is a such.

The Board Chair of the American Medical Association even said:

"We have the deepest respect for nurses, and the AMA wholeheartedly believes that each member of the health care team plays a critical role in ensuring patients get the best possible care. But it's an undeniable fact that a nurse with a graduate degree does not have the same education and training as a physician who has completed medical school and residency training, and it's misleading for nurses to introduce themselves to patients as a doctor, (Make Room for Dr. Nurse, April 2). While standards for the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) are presently being devised, nursing organizations currently recommend DNP students complete just 1,000 hours of "practical experience" after obtaining a Bachelor's degree. Physicians complete more than 12 times that amount during their graduate education. In addition to the two years of clinical rotations physicians fulfill during their four years of medical school, they also complete three or more years of full-time medical residency training.

The DNP program with the one-year residency training mentioned in the article is far from the norm. While one DNP graduate may complete a two-year program including a one-year residency, another can complete the program entirely online and without any patient care experience."

Yikes!! If I get a doctorate degree, I expect to have a lot of hardcore science and at least a few thousand hours of full-time patient care experience. I expect a lot of hands-on learning. Yet in every DNP program I have seen, there is NONE! If I am going to spend that much time in school to get a doctorate degree, I might as well go to medical school. I don't want to go to medical school. I want to get a masters degree and be an excellent mid-level practitioner who provides the highest level of care to my patients. A practice doctorate degree for nurses is a joke.... it doesn't make nurses even close to be equivalent to doctors. They will always and forever be mid-level practitioners. So, what is the point of a doctorate?

I wouldn't be so against the DNP if it was modeled somewhat after the MD/DO or even PA programs that are taught more on the medical model and use science, hands-on learning, and patient care experience. But they don't. Check out the curriculum for the DNP program at Case Western: http://fpb.case.edu/DNP/curriculum.shtm

I'm not against nurses or nurse practitioners. I highly respect the nursing profession and health care wouldn't function without them. I am just against the nurse practitioner program being a doctorate level degree. Is this going to happen? When will it happen? What is the purpose if it doesn't make us better care providers to patients? How do people in favor of the DNP react to the AMA being a against it?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
I heard that the DNP was going to be required for all nurse practitioners by 2015. However, I don't know how factual that is. When my aunt was in nursing school, they said the exact same thing about all RNs being required to have bachelor degrees, but that obviously STILL hasn't happened and that was 30 some years ago.

I am graduating in March with my BA and planning to enter a 2nd degree accelerated BSN program. My plan is to become a Physician Assistant, but PAs aren't used at all in the area where I am from. If I end up staying here or plans change, I may consider an NP program because I still have a lot of prerequisites left for PA and it might not be feasible depending on where my life is. Anyways - I have done a lot of thinking and I would be happier with PA, but if the cards fell in such a way that I ended up going NP, I would not regret the decision and I would be happy with my career.

My question, however, is when (if ever) will a DNP be required? If a DNP becomes standard, I will, with 100% certainty, NOT become a nurse practitioner. I have looked at several DNP programs and they are A JOKE. They are a combination of a M.Ed, MBA, and MPH. Where is the science? Where is the clinical hands on patient care experience? Even the AMA things it is a such.

The Board Chair of the American Medical Association even said:

"We have the deepest respect for nurses, and the AMA wholeheartedly believes that each member of the health care team plays a critical role in ensuring patients get the best possible care. But it's an undeniable fact that a nurse with a graduate degree does not have the same education and training as a physician who has completed medical school and residency training, and it's misleading for nurses to introduce themselves to patients as a doctor, (Make Room for Dr. Nurse, April 2). While standards for the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) are presently being devised, nursing organizations currently recommend DNP students complete just 1,000 hours of "practical experience" after obtaining a Bachelor's degree. Physicians complete more than 12 times that amount during their graduate education. In addition to the two years of clinical rotations physicians fulfill during their four years of medical school, they also complete three or more years of full-time medical residency training.

The DNP program with the one-year residency training mentioned in the article is far from the norm. While one DNP graduate may complete a two-year program including a one-year residency, another can complete the program entirely online and without any patient care experience."

Yikes!! If I get a doctorate degree, I expect to have a lot of hardcore science and at least a few thousand hours of full-time patient care experience. I expect a lot of hands-on learning. Yet in every DNP program I have seen, there is NONE! If I am going to spend that much time in school to get a doctorate degree, I might as well go to medical school. I don't want to go to medical school. I want to get a masters degree and be an excellent mid-level practitioner who provides the highest level of care to my patients. A practice doctorate degree for nurses is a joke.... it doesn't make nurses even close to be equivalent to doctors. They will always and forever be mid-level practitioners. So, what is the point of a doctorate?

I wouldn't be so against the DNP if it was modeled somewhat after the MD/DO or even PA programs that are taught more on the medical model and use science, hands-on learning, and patient care experience. But they don't. Check out the curriculum for the DNP program at Case Western: http://fpb.case.edu/DNP/curriculum.shtm

I'm not against nurses or nurse practitioners. I highly respect the nursing profession and health care wouldn't function without them. I am just against the nurse practitioner program being a doctorate level degree. Is this going to happen? When will it happen? What is the purpose if it doesn't make us better care providers to patients? How do people in favor of the DNP react to the AMA being a against it?

I would not go to Case. I would recommend checking Purdue's DNP program. It is clinically based and required clinical hours as a NP. I am in favor of a DNP program. It will result in better nurse practitioners, I think these schools have to decide that the DNP/ NP program is clinically based. Other doctorate programs are available for RNs who dont want to be NPs in ed and admin.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I still have no interest in a doctorate degree. Masters degree prepared nurses are excellent mid-level providers and that is what the nurse practitioner is intended to be. There is absolutely zero possible way to make NPs equivalent to doctors. If you want to be equivalent to a physician - go to medical school. Even at a good DNP program, a nurse still has under 2,000 hours of clinical experience while a doctor has around 12,000 in school plus a 3-8 year residency (another 6,000 to 16,000 hours assuming 40 hours a week).

I have no interest in management, education, public health, etc. I'm strictly interested in working in a health care setting and providing health care to patients.

A PA takes courses such as: anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, pathology, genetics, the medical interview, physical diagnoses, imaging, etc. An NP takes classes such as Nursing Theory, Nursing Research, Health Policy & Planning, Collaboration & Consultation, Role Development, Teaching & Learning, Legal & Ethical Issues, Inquiry, etc...

You couldn't pay me to get the DNP. I do not wish to be a doctor. I do not wihs to be an independent provider. I do not care about all those theory/teaching type classes that DNP students take. I do not care to be in education or administration. I want to practice medicine collaboratively with physicians. I want to learn medicine and use it to treat patients.

If the push for the DNP is NOT to be an independent provider, why go to graduate school for almost 4 years (same length as MD/DO school) to still have to work under/with physicians?

If the push IS to become an independent provider, why not just go to medical school? Why create curriculum that is drastically different and sub par to medical curriculum. Why is the AMA 100% against it?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.

I am curious, are you an RN right now ? How many full time years have you worked as a RN ?

An NP takes classes such as Nursing Theory, Nursing Research, Health Policy & Planning, Collaboration & Consultation, Role Development, Teaching & Learning, Legal & Ethical Issues, Inquiry, etc...

I did take Theory, research, policy, Legal and ethical issues. Im not sure where you get collaboration and consultation at. I also took bio, a and p, micro, both under grad and grad stats, chemistry, trig, both under grad and grad physical exam and pathophysiology. Plus my undergrad clinicals and my FNP clinicals.

I know for a fact that MDs and DOs have to take similar classes as well. I feel that sometimes NP programs get too touchy feely with some of this stuff, but make no mistake, they called is advanced nursing, but as a NP told me, its just a name, your practicing medicine, the structure and training is different, but the outcome should be the same.

You comment about being an independent provider... show me someone who is an independent provider... the family doc who refers a patient to cardiology. The cardiologist who does not handle endo issues ? No one is independent, NPs strive for autonomy, but with that autonomy comes responsibility, No one is really independent.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm an LPN (did it while in high school) who is now in college... going to work as an RN for a few years and then go back to graduate school.

I'm just curious why a lot of people, including the AMA, seem to be totally against what Mary Mundinger is trying to do with the DNP program. Maybe there is more to the DNP program than what is posted on the curriculum pages.

But again, the point of my post was to find out if the DNP will actually become the standard and if so, when it will happen. Also, if it really will happen or if people are just saying it will happen (as what happened when they claimed the BSN will become the standard for RNs). I don't want to start a flame war. I'm entitled to my opinions.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
I'm an LPN (did it while in high school) who is now in college... going to work as an RN for a few years and then go back to graduate school.

I'm just curious why a lot of people, including the AMA, seem to be totally against what Mary Mundinger is trying to do with the DNP program. Maybe there is more to the DNP program than what is posted on the curriculum pages.

But again, the point of my post was to find out if the DNP will actually become the standard and if so, when it will happen. Also, if it really will happen or if people are just saying it will happen (as what happened when they claimed the BSN will become the standard for RNs). I don't want to start a flame war. I'm entitled to my opinions.

If it was up to the AMA, their would be no such thing as a professional nurse. It is a political action commitee for physicians. They have to take the hardest stand on every issue because it is in their best interest, just like the ANA takes stands on issues which I dont agree with, but non the less , they exist.

I guess it useless to speculate what the AMA would do to nursing if they could.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

foreverLaur:

Most of the existing, approved DNP programs build on APN certification and MSN-preparation. The reason they emphasize courses in systems leadership, statistics, use of Evidence Based Practice, ethics, etc, is because these courses are not included in most MSN NP programs.

To get a better picture of what a DNP curriculum will look like, take a gander at the University of Washington (Seattle) http://www.son.washington.edu/admissions/dnp/. UW has ended the MSN exit option for many of their advanced practice tracks. These tracks are only admitting students in a BSN-DNP format. This will give you a fuller picture for what a DNP curriculum will look like.

Our own DNP program at UVA is definitely clinically based. All students are doing at least 500 precepted hours above the MSN or post-masters levels. A primary focus of our own program is to integrate evidence into practice, and all students undertake a particular capstone project that leads to them authoring an article about their practice project for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a level of practice/knowledge that is beyond that expected of MSN programs.

After our program has earned CCNE accreditation (our site visit is next month), we intend to turn to a BSN-DNP option for some of our APN tracks.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

UW also has their GEPN program which enables NON nurses with a non-nursing bachelors to directly enter the GEPN program and emerge as a DNP 3 years later..... no experience required to start.

- as many in this forum have have stated you can then call him/her "Doctor" in the clinical setting...

Up Vote Up Vote ×

That's not scary or anything... :uhoh21:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The UW GEPN program is rigorous and very competitive. It's pretty old-fashioned to think that nurses need to be an LPN then a CNA then an RN, etc. In Washington at least, RNs do not do the same thing an LPN does. Same with CNA. There are other ways to get experience working with people.

Also, PAs are trained using the old-school medical model. Not the way more holistic and patient-friendly nursing model. I think most of us on this site agree the nursing model is far superior and personally fulfilling ;-)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The UW GEPN program is rigorous and very competitive. It's pretty old-fashioned to think that nurses need to be an LPN then a CNA then an RN, etc. In Washington at least, RNs do not do the same thing an LPN does. Same with CNA. There are other ways to get experience working with people.

Also, PAs are trained using the old-school medical model. Not the way more holistic and patient-friendly nursing model. I think most of us on this site agree the nursing model is far superior and personally fulfilling ;-)

The nursing model has its place, but it is just that... the nursing model. It is not the medical model and therefore very different from MDs/DOs who are superior to everyone else in health care. Try as they might, nurses and their "theory" and "research" classes will never take over physicians. Oh and by the way, it goes CNA, LPN, RN not LPN, CNA, RN. Finally, the medical model definitely teaches patient-friendliness. Just because the medical model isn't void of science and filled with fluffy theory classes does not mean that physicians are evil and mean. And of course all nurses think their model is far superior. Sadly, nobody agrees with you. The American Medical Association is publically against the DNP.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Wow, what are you even doing on this Web site?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion