Why would you want a DNP?

In my opinion the DNP doesnt delinate itself enough from the PhD in nursing. The DNP is supposed to be the "practice" doctorate but many APRN's feel it doesnt really augment their role as providers. The DNP is still heavy into research, statistics (which is part of research), theory, and ethics. Very little is spent on the actual "practice" portion. I'm not trying to discredit those who get the DNP, I'm just saying a lot of APRN's dont see that it offers them anything additinal than what they already do. Sure some will want it for the terminal degree and possibly the title (which you can't use in certain places) but I dont feel thats a good enough reason to attain it.

Now should they focus on working with a vulnerable population or provide some type of advanced clinical practicum related to scope then I feel it would offer much more. For example an ACNP could spend their doctorate learning a more in depth scope into acute medical management(like an in depth cardiology class, nephrology class, and pulmonary class), potentially even have a capstone focusing on an acute disease related process that is hospital related. I think APRN's want it to be more "practice" based and to squeeze more out of their everyday experience.

Dear Twozer0,

I think you and others might just need to check into more DNP programs to see what each offers. In my program, through Union University in Jackson, TN, we had to have 1000 clinical hours - literally - which far surpasses the hours we spent studying how politics related to nursing and why it was important for nurses to get involved; or about how to create a budget for a advanced practice partnership; or collecting data for a research project - which could be in any area of interest the student had. Our clinical hours could focus on any type of advanced practice - whatever the student's focus was, so you could make it your 'ideal' learning experience. Yes, we learn and do enough research to be familiar with it and be able to translate it into practice - evidence based practice. So I urge you to continue to search out a DNP program that fits what you and others want to experience...its out there.

Dear Twozer0,

I think you and others might just need to check into more DNP programs to see what each offers. In my program, through Union University in Jackson, TN, we had to have 1000 clinical hours - literally - which far surpasses the hours we spent studying how politics related to nursing and why it was important for nurses to get involved; or about how to create a budget for a advanced practice partnership; or collecting data for a research project - which could be in any area of interest the student had. Our clinical hours could focus on any type of advanced practice - whatever the student's focus was, so you could make it your 'ideal' learning experience. Yes, we learn and do enough research to be familiar with it and be able to translate it into practice - evidence based practice. So I urge you to continue to search out a DNP program that fits what you and others want to experience...its out there.

I went to the Union University website to look at the requirements for the executive leadership program. It had 1060 hours of clinical time which is great but I want to stress that this is also masters AND doctorate clinical hours. The post MSN has 660 hours of clinical (which is typical for most DNP programs, post masters).

I feel this is where most advanced practice nurses feel the need to have a separate and more worthwhile degree. You have a doctorate in leadership but does this have parity with a doctorate for a nurse practitioner or CRNA? For example, CRNA's developed their own doctorate the DNAP because they knew that their practice guidelines should not be lumped into a general degree (and really no doctorate should, its supposed to be speacialized). They work in a highly specialized area, much like NP's and also like leadership. A lot of programs do little to distinguish the basis of the DNP from how it was originally created.

I also want to point out that the Doctoral program for post masters at the school you went for is the exact same between leadership and nurse practitioner. The only difference being where you spend clinical hours. How does this adequately prepare someone with drastically different educational and functional backgrounds for work related to their specific field. This is the big elephant in the room with the DNP.

See for yourself here (NP): Post-Master's Doctor of Nursing Practice - Nurse Practitioner Tracks | School of Nursing | Union University, a Christian College in Tennessee

and here for leadership: Post-Master's Doctor of Nursing Practice - Executive Leadership Track | School of Nursing | Union University, a Christian College in Tennessee

I am in no way trying to discredit you from getting your DNP, its quite the feat. I just feel there is a huge problem in the way its implemented and how it severly lacks several things for those who still work in patient care vs those who do not.

Hello again!

I totally understand what you are saying about specializing, such as the CRNA's. All I can add to what you said are these points:

1. I had 450+ masters clinical hours and still had to earn 1000 in the DNP program.

2. Yes, the basic core courses for the DNP are the same for all, just like in any other nursing program - BSN, MSN, etc, where core courses are taken by everyone. In my class there were 3 CRNA's and they did their clinicals at sites where they learned and experienced a higher degree of skill, as well as researched areas of interest in those fields; about half the remaining students were APRN's and they chose clinical experiences that would help them grow in knowledge and in skills for their particular license, and their interests; and the final half were faculty from various universities. The DNP is strictly a practice doctorate - the 'DNP Essentials' specifically say that it does not address the needs of the academic nurse educator. However, it does provide a leadership focus which works for most of us in academia.

3. The DNP is not the 'perfect' degree for me - but the problem is that there isn't one that is perfect for the nurse educator. There are currently only two doctoral degrees recognized in nursing - the PhD, which is research focused, and the DNP. I wanted my terminal degree, and being university faculty I also needed that degree. So it was either, not get a doctorate, or choose the one that would benefit me the most.

4. Both the PhD and the DNP are recognized as terminal degrees for nursing; obviously, the PhD is the oldest degree so people are more aware of it. But both are respected as the highest levels of nursing - one for practice and the other for research.

5. Nursing educators are hoping that at some point, some 'official' body will design a doctoral program specifically for academic nurse educators. But it would be too late for me...

So I guess what I'm saying is that for me, the DNP was my solution. It definitely is a practice degree (see the DNP Essentials) so it should be perfect for those who practice at the bedside and in remote areas as APRN's. You can make your clinical focus what you want or need it to be. You design it. So, would you mind explaining what you mean by "How does this adequately prepare someone with drastically different educational and functional backgrounds for work related to their specific field. This is the big elephant in the room with the DNP." I'm not sure where the 'disconnect' is...

Thanks so much for your comments. Maybe someone is reading this who can create a program that better meets your needs - and will totally meet the needs of educators, like me.

Have you ever considered the Ed.D degree for your role as an educator? Just curious as to that degree versus the DNP.

So, would you mind explaining what you mean by "How does this adequately prepare someone with drastically different educational and functional backgrounds for work related to their specific field. This is the big elephant in the room with the DNP." I'm not sure where the 'disconnect' is...

Yes, i was referring to your post masters DNP. The program is the same for the nurse practitioner and the nurse educator. That is why I linked them to show that there is no difference in the program, they are all the same classes.

I bring this up because APRN's are providers whereas education is not. Should providers share the same advanced education as someone getting their nursing leadership or education focus? I don't think so. This is why anesthesia jumped ship and also why I think APRN's need their own focus (even outside of the DNP essentials).

In my former academic institution, a DNP would be mildly accepted for educators. We had a couple- neither tenured or on track. The tenure track strongly favored the Ph.D. The major university here would not tenure track the DNP nor the Ed.d. I think it wise to look in the academic area you want to teach in. Sorry, but if you were already employed as a nursing professor, you should know which degree would be accepted at your site so no dilemma. Also depends on tenure or not, maybe some would be happy with an assistant professor or lecturer title, but seems rather stupid and unfair.

I'm advanced practice and if I went back, hands down the DNP. If I knew I wanted to teach forever, it would be the Ph.D (upper Midwest state. ) Here the Ed.d might be ok if you'd been in the field and tenured, but be careful.