Writing the Prescription to Fix Broken Nurse Practitioner (NP) Education (Pt. I)

There are over 230,000 licensed nurse practitioners (NP) in the United States and I am proud to say that I will soon be one of them. NPs have achieved great advances in practice since the first education program began at the University of Colorado (UC) in 1965. NPs provide essential care for millions of Americans and now have full, independent practice authority in 22 states. However, despite these advances, our educational preparation is inconsistent, flawed and needs restructuring.

NURSE PRACTITIONER HISTORY

When Drs. Loretta Ford, RN and Henry Silver, MD developed the first NP certificate program in 1965 it provided experienced registered nurses (RN) with the additional training to work in pediatric primary care settings collaboratively with physicians to manage acute and chronic illness (American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, n.d.). Drs. Ford and Silver believed that majority of the healthcare needs presenting in pediatric primary care settings could safety be overseen by nurses with advanced training in physical assessment, pathophysiology, pharmacology, and disease management. After creating the program at UC, Dr. Ford continued to work to develop the NP role and advocate for its implementation throughout the country. Since the NP role began, education has evolved from certificate to graduate degree programs and now includes acute and primary care specialties serving patients across the lifespan. NPs work in clinics, community settings, hospitals and private offices; some work completely independently while others work collaboratively in multidisciplinary treatment teams.

Even with all of the progress achieved in advancing the NP role, debate continues regarding the necessary education and training required for NPs. Some of the biggest points of dispute include minimum number of clinical practice hours, degree for entry to practice, prerequisite RN experience, and necessity of post-graduate residency/fellowship training. In this two-part series I will discuss each of these topics and offer my take on what is broken within the current system and then suggestions on how we can improve it for future practitioners. Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and do not reflect the views of any college/university or professional organization. This is not a critique of any specific education program but rather a general commentary about NP education in the United States with the hope of starting an open and productive dialog between members of this forum.

EDUCATION SYSTEM PROBLEMS

The first NP programs were designed to build upon the practice of experienced nurses but as time has marched on we have seen the emergence of new educational formats including online and accelerated programs. Students can now complete NP programs in online classrooms from anywhere in the world and non-nursing professionals from a variety of backgrounds can join our field through accelerated degree programs. Utilizing new educational tools and alternative paths to entry are important to remaining current but these methods present challenges for maintaining quality standards and the "nurse" identity of nurse practitioner. Studies have found that having previous clinical experience as an RN was not associated with improved academic success or stronger clinical skills as a new NP (El-Banna et al., 2015; Rich, 2005, Rich & Rodriguez, 2002). While I won't debate that non-nursing professionals can effectively complete accelerated programs and become successful NPs, I believe that these NPs miss out on critical socialization aspects of being an RN and are less likely to identify with the "nurse" aspect of being a nurse practitioner.

Another issue that comes under frequent discussion is the variation of clinical practicum hours that NP students have to complete depending on their program. The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) mandates that programs have a minimum of 500 direct patient care hours but offer few other specific guidelines (2016). A review of programs from around the country, the average number of clinical practicum hours range from 500 - 1000 hours when a masters degree or post-graduate certificate is conferred and 750 - 1250 when a doctoral degree is awarded. At first glance, one might assume that the higher clinical hours associated with completing a doctoral program would mean more direct patient care hours but in most circumstances the additional hours are for the completion of a capstone quality improvement or research project. This has come under serious discussion as it has been suggested that the entry degree to practice be changed from the Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) to the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). The idea of raising education requirements and improving scholarship is good in theory but many question the "value add" of the DNP degree for NP when the additional clinical hours required for the degree are not typically related to direct patient care but are instead focused on a quality improvement or research project. The purpose of this article is not to debate the merits of a particular degree but to consider its value specifically as it relates to improving the ability of a NP to provide direct patient care as a clinician.

Another major hurdle for many programs is securing appropriate clinical sites and preceptors. Many prospective NP students and healthcare professionals outside of nursing are unaware that in a number of programs it is the responsibility for students to find their own preceptors and clinical sites, which is challenging and results in unnecessary delays for program completion. For the more programs that take the responsibility of matching students with preceptors it can still be difficulty because most nursing programs do not pay experienced practitioners a stipend for having a student work with them and instead rely on volunteering and offers of continuing education credits or course credit at the affiliated college/university. In this writer's opinion, forcing students to find their own preceptors is inappropriate and contributes to a lack of standardization in quality education. Also, by not offering some form of financial compensation or stipend to preceptors it sends the message that the preceptor's time is not valuable and the education of NPs is less valuable than physicians or physician assistants (many PA and medical school programs provide financial compensation to preceptors for their time working with students).

In the next segment I will discuss some problems seen with the modern graduate student and then provide a "prescription" for how fix a broken system. My question for the readers is, do you think that any major change is needed to this system at all? Do you feel that most NP programs are successfully producing graduates who are fully ready to assume the NP role in our current healthcare landscape? Or do you think that a majority of the issues are due to problems in education programs, healthcare institutions, and to a degree, the students themselves (e.g. professionalism, behavior, experience, expectations)?


REFERENCES

American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. (n.d.). Historical timeline. Retrieved from AANP - Historical Timeline

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. (2016). Frequently asked questions: Clinical practice experiences. Retrieved from American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) > Home

El-Banna, M., Briggs, L. A., Leslie, M. S., Athey, E. K., Pericak, A., Falk, N. L., & Greene, J. (2015). Does prior RN clinical experience predict academic success in graduate nurse practitioner programs? Journal of Nursing Education, 54(5), 276-280. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20150417-05

Rich, E. (2005). Does RN experience relate to NP clinical skills?. Nurse Practitioner, 30(12), 53-56.

Rich, E., & Rodriguez, L. (2002). A qualitative study of perceptions regarding the non-nurse college graduate nurse practitioner. Journal of the New York State Nurses Association, 33(2), 31-35.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
The clinic I work for hires new grad NPs and PAs, provides extensive training, and also believes in precepting NP and PA students. We're going to hire at least 10 NPs and PAs in the next year. This group has a long history of hiring new grad NPs and PAs, and because of the excellent training, has never had a problem.

That's great. I think that with your education at a reputable program and extensive on the job training, you will become an excellent clinician. I firmly believe in individual qualities and circumstances that affect the way each of us NP's turn out in the end. Sometimes, the stars align well that things work out in the best way. Think of someone who not only had no RN experience and went to a terrible school only to be fed to the wolves in a new NP job that has little support - that's a disaster and we don't need studies to prove that. I think we all agree that this happens and we all agree that we need to improve so that this risk is minimized.

Actually that's not true. I work in the academic medical center of one of those 2 institutions I cited (won't say which one as it's easy to figure out). The direct-entry program students who graduate with an MS and no BSN at all are eligible to sit for NP certification.

I truly do not understand why people are being coy about naming schools. Please just name the schools pertinent to an issue at hand.

Juan, I don't know you. However, not attacking people personally has to go both ways. Again, I was attacked and I did not complain. You didn't jump to my defense, I noticed. Why is it adolescent to make a factual observation? I don't care if people attack me - I just want to have a useful debate. I will admit when I am wrong. In addition, this forum is not "owned" by posters that have been on here a long time. Just because someone has been active on this forum for a long time does not make their opinions more "valid." If you try to shut down people with differing opinions, this forum will cease to be useful.

Actually that's not true. I work in the academic medical center of one of those 2 institutions I cited (won't say which one as it's easy to figure out). The direct-entry program students who graduate with an MS and no BSN at all are eligible to sit for NP certification.

I really don't understand why you won't name the programs. What you have said is public domain knowledge that is right on their websites. I have been very open about the schools I attended. If you name the schools, that will be useful for people who don't want to go to such schools that don't properly prepare people. I agree that if a person is direct entry MSN (no BSN) and after 2 years can sit for an NP license exam, that is a problem. That's why I'd like to know which schools do this.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
I really don't understand why you won't name the programs. What you have said is public domain knowledge that is right on their websites. I have been very open about the schools I attended. If you name the schools, that will be useful for people who don't want to go to such schools that don't properly prepare people. I agree that if a person is direct entry MSN (no BSN) and after 2 years can sit for an NP license exam, that is a problem. That's why I'd like to know which schools do this.

Umm...UCSF and their programs are very competitive and well respected in the nation. Before you pass judgement on the way these programs are set-up (which is essentially similar to the route you took), the students go through a prelicensure portion where elements of the BSN completion curriculum are included. It is basically accelerated BSN without getting a BSN afterwhich students seamlessly transition to the NP specialty portion. It's not a 2-year program (don't know where you got the idea), but rather 3 years at the very least.

These programs didn't all used to be set up this way. An NP colleague of mine was accepted to Columbia's direct entry NP program back in the day when the program still awarded a BSN then an MS. She left the program halfway through after she got the BSN because she found a job at a NYC hospital and enjoyed the role as a bedside nurse. She eventually moved to San Francisco and went to finish her NP at UCSF. She thinks the change was a response by some schools to limit the attrition that was happening back then with students leaving after finding jobs as RN's. That's her interpretation, not necessarily fact.

I've worked with direct entry grads from Columbia, Yale, Penn, Case Western, along with local UCSF grads. Our hospital has many East Coast and Midwest transplants both in Nursing and Medicine. Many are excellent NP's.

FYI, UCSF does no have a BSN program at all. Their nursing programs start at the MS level, PhD, and now DNP.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
I truly do not understand why people are being coy about naming schools. Please just name the schools pertinent to an issue at hand.

Juan, I don't know you. However, not attacking people personally has to go both ways. Again, I was attacked and I did not complain. You didn't jump to my defense, I noticed. Why is it adolescent to make a factual observation? I don't care if people attack me - I just want to have a useful debate. I will admit when I am wrong. In addition, this forum is not "owned" by posters that have been on here a long time. Just because someone has been active on this forum for a long time does not make their opinions more "valid." If you try to shut down people with differing opinions, this forum will cease to be useful.

Saying "you had a chip on your shoulder" is uncalled for.

However, not to defend elk again but I wish you would re-read what she wrote. That to me was a factual observation on her part and not an attack. You have, on multiple occasions defended that NP's in primary care do not need experience at the bedside as RN's illuminating it through published research (that are imperfect as many research are) and with your own personal experience going through BSN then straight to NP without ever working as an RN. That was clear enough and I respect that.

Yet, on some of your posts in defending the NP role vs PA's, you made an argument that most NP's have bedside RN experience that seem to imply that it strengthens their credibility in having less total clinical hours in their training compared to PA's. That was the head scratcher she was alluding to because it seems like you contradicted yourself.

You also mentioned in the very same post that one can not go to NP school without a BSN and you were proven wrong because there are NP's that never got a BSN because of the direct entry program route they took. I guess it does help that most of us have been posters here for a while because this is a fact that has been mentioned in these forums over and over again.

I admire your passion but if I were a newbie (not on allnurses BTW but as an NP in general), I'd be careful what I post here without checking the facts because someone here more experienced will call you out on whatever inaccurate info you post.

Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
It is basically accelerated BSN without getting a BSN afterwhich students seamlessly transition to the NP specialty portion. It's not a 2-year program (don't know where you got the idea), but rather 3 years at the very least.

These programs didn't all used to be set up this way. An NP colleague of mine was accepted to Columbia's direct entry NP program back in the day when the program still awarded a BSN then an MS. She left the program halfway through after she got the BSN because she found a job at a NYC hospital and enjoyed the role as a bedside nurse. She eventually moved to San Francisco and went to finish her NP at UCSF. She thinks the change was a response by some schools to limit the attrition that was happening back then with students leaving after finding jobs as RN's. That's her interpretation, not necessarily fact.

.

I'd agree 100% with your colleague that this is about nothing more than attrition aka the bottom line and going back to the CNL programs, whole other racket imo, it has always astounded me that people are willing to pay graduate rates for what includes a significant amount of undergraduate education. Although I have seen the many reasons people justify this I find it unfortunate that intelligent consumers don't demand better from these institutions where they spend thousands of dollars. To expect to be treated in a fair and equitable manner doesn't seem like too much to expect.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
I'd agree 100% with your colleague that this is about nothing more than attrition aka the bottom line and going back to the CNL programs, whole other racket imo, it has always astounded me that people are willing to pay graduate rates for what includes a significant amount of undergraduate education. Although I have seen the many reasons people justify this I find it unfortunate that intelligent consumers don't demand better from these institutions where they spend thousands of dollars. To expect to be treated in a fair and equitable manner doesn't seem like too much to expect.

I think some DE programs are good and very selective. Here in California, they tend to be everywhere but not all are NP programs. I've never checked into whether DE programs charge undergrad tuition for the undergrad courses and grad tuition for the Master's level courses. Perhaps someone can comment on that.

I'm a proponent of finding good educational value in public institutions because I am a graduate of a state university myself where I felt that I got a good education for a reasonable price. However, I won't dissuade people from attending expensive private Nursing schools because I think these institutions have contributed to the recognition of Nursing as a legitimate field of academic pursuit.

Some of these programs historically evolved from the humble Florence Nightingale style hospital-based training programs that led to a diploma nurse to their current status as full fledged academic units as schools or colleges of Nursing in the same level of recognition as the medical schools.

Specializes in Forensic Psychiatry.
Do you feel that most NP programs are successfully producing graduates who are fully ready to assume the NP role in our current healthcare landscape? Or do you think that a majority of the issues are due to problems in education programs, healthcare institutions, and to a degree, the students themselves (e.g. professionalism, behavior, experience, expectations)?

One of the biggest frustrations for me as a new grad PMHNP is that in my specialty we just aren't exposed enough to the medical realm and yet, so many of the patient's we work with have a ton of comorbid medical issues (many caused by the medications we prescribe). Without being duly certified in another specialty - FNP, AGPCNP, ACNP etc. - we can't really manage medical issues, and so many of our patients don't have access to primary care.

One class of general pharmacology in combination with my psychopharmacology course and clinical rotations gives me knowledge about general pharmacological principles, mechanisms and interactions with the medications I prescribe but not enough were I would feel comfortable (or safe license/liability wise) where I would feel okay managing conditions like metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypothyroidism etc.

I chose the facility where I will be starting at based on the fact that I worked there as an RN and have a very clear understanding of the client population, what my caseload will look like, the fact that I have already built relationship with the MD's that work there and can go to them for help, and what supports I will have with medical management - however I know from recruitment stuff I've gotten not all facilities understand the limitations of the PMHNP position (and it seems some definitely try and push medical and psychiatric management on the practitioner).

I've been an RN for a few years so I have no problem turning down places where I have a pretty good gut intuition would try and work me outside my scope (some facilities really don't care - you're just a way to make them revenue) or those that will low-ball me while having me work long hours on a salary (no thanks). However, one has to think - someone out there is taking these positions (seriously one of the county ED's was trying to hire a PMHNP on for $35/hr - and someone filled it).

Like in a perfect world (on top of adding a lot more sciences to the NP degree and making admission standards more stringent) I really wish that they divided the specialties into two general tracks - Primary Care & Acute care - with every specialty starting with a year of doing general medical rotations (outpatient or inpatient depending on track) and then a second year of specialty rotations. Because honestly, I have absolutely no desire managing chronic medical conditions but I would like to have some proficiency in doing so (and not have it be a huge mess of liability) if I was in the position where it was necessary.

I also really, really wish that other specialties got a lot more experience with psych - one thing that I found when I was doing ED consults was just how many primary care providers try to manage psychiatric issues and have no clue what they're doing. Like seriously - doing R/O Dementia on a 65 Y/O being managed on Xanax 1 mg PO TID for Anxiety, Percoset 10/325 PO Q6H BID PRN for Chronic pain, Ambien 20 mg PO QHS for Insomnia; sometimes with a stimulant thrown on top for chronic fatigue. Holy cow I'm half that person's age and spend my free time weight-lifting and I would be floored under the table and unable to remember anything with that regimen. No wonder they're having memory problems.

These are just some of my thoughts on the whole thing.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
One of the biggest frustrations for me as a new grad PMHNP is that in my specialty we just aren't exposed enough to the medical realm and yet, so many of the patient's we work with have a ton of comorbid medical issues (many caused by the medications we prescribe). Without being duly certified in another specialty - FNP, AGPCNP, ACNP etc. - we can't really manage medical issues, and so many of our patients don't have access to primary care.

One class of general pharmacology in combination with my psychopharmacology course and clinical rotations gives me knowledge about general pharmacological principles, mechanisms and interactions with the medications I prescribe but not enough were I would feel comfortable (or safe license/liability wise) where I would feel okay managing conditions like metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypothyroidism etc.

I chose the facility where I will be starting at based on the fact that I worked there as an RN and have a very clear understanding of the client population, what my caseload will look like, the fact that I have already built relationship with the MD's that work there and can go to them for help, and what supports I will have with medical management - however I know from recruitment stuff I've gotten not all facilities understand the limitations of the PMHNP position (and it seems some definitely try and push medical and psychiatric management on the practitioner).

I've been an RN for a few years so I have no problem turning down places where I have a pretty good gut intuition would try and work me outside my scope (some facilities really don't care - you're just a way to make them revenue) or those that will low-ball me while having me work long hours on a salary (no thanks). However, one has to think - someone out there is taking these positions (seriously one of the county ED's was trying to hire a PMHNP on for $35/hr - and someone filled it).

Like in a perfect world (on top of adding a lot more sciences to the NP degree and making admission standards more stringent) I really wish that they divided the specialties into two general tracks - Primary Care & Acute care - with every specialty starting with a year of doing general medical rotations (outpatient or inpatient depending on track) and then a second year of specialty rotations. Because honestly, I have absolutely no desire managing chronic medical conditions but I would like to have some proficiency in doing so (and not have it be a huge mess of liability) if I was in the position where it was necessary.

I also really, really wish that other specialties got a lot more experience with psych - one thing that I found when I was doing ED consults was just how many primary care providers try to manage psychiatric issues and have no clue what they're doing. Like seriously - doing R/O Dementia on a 65 Y/O being managed on Xanax 1 mg PO TID for Anxiety, Percoset 10/325 PO Q6H BID PRN for Chronic pain, Ambien 20 mg PO QHS for Insomnia; sometimes with a stimulant thrown on top for chronic fatigue. Holy cow I'm half that person's age and spend my free time weight-lifting and I would be floored under the table and unable to remember anything with that regimen. No wonder they're having memory problems.

These are just some of my thoughts on the whole thing.

These are very good points.

Psychiatry residency programs typically have 3-4 months of a combination of Family Practice and in-pt Medicine rounds, month of EM, and a couple months of Neurology. It would be good if PMHNP programs would incorporate some of the rotations that primary care FNP and in-pt ACNP students get albeit in a condensed manner to allow more focus to Psychiatry. As an ACNP in the ICU, I never write for psychotropics other than for dealing with ICU delirium. Unfortunately, some hospitalists forget that these patients leave the hospital into the community and are still on these low dose antipsychotics that should have been DC'd.

Specializes in Forensic Psychiatry.
These are very good points.

Psychiatry residency programs typically have 3-4 months of a combination of Family Practice and in-pt Medicine rounds, month of EM, and a couple months of Neurology. It would be good if PMHNP programs would incorporate some of the rotations that primary care FNP and in-pt ACNP students get albeit in a condensed manner to allow more focus to Psychiatry. As an ACNP in the ICU, I never write for psychotropics other than for dealing with ICU delirium. Unfortunately, some hospitalists forget that these patients leave the hospital into the community and are still on these low dose antipsychotics that should have been DC'd.

Yep - one of the good things about my program is that we did a lot of our rotations in tandem with the residents and it put into a very harsh perspective how many deficits the NP program has in comparison to medical education (even the good ones). One of my rotations was done on the consult-liaison team and not having that experience in FM or neurology meant a lot of late nights reading research articles on stuff like CNS lupus, temporal epilepsy, post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment etc. Psych has so many medical rule outs that are part of a differential, it's actually really terrifying that most programs just don't grant a more solid medical background (like mine at least had us on consults, ER, doing physical assessments - mainly enough time to get a very clear understand about all the things we DON'T know - but I also know people from the "find your own placement" kind of program and seriously wonder what kinds of experience they come out with).

There are direct entry programs that do not award a BSN. Students graduate with an MS and that's it. Off hand both UCSF and Columbia's programs are set-up like that and I had to check their websites to confirm. FWIW, both are USNWR top-rated institutions.

Academic Programs - MEPN | UCSF School of Nursing

MDE FAQs | School of Nursing

Thank you for this info. You are right about there being direct entry MSN programs, of course. I am sorry for my misstatement to the contrary. I also looked at the UCSF and Columbia websites. My analysis is below.

UCSF Master's Entry Program Nursing (MEPN). UCSF is one of the best healthcare education institutions in the US. This is a 3 year program for people who already have a bachelor's degree in a non-nursing field. The first year is the equivalent of an accelerated BSN (and there are 13 month ABSN programs). After completion of the first year, students sit for the NCLEX to obtain an RN. The next 2 years are NP school and UCSF has very specialized tracks - primary care peds, primary care AGNP, PMH NP, etc. Some advanced practice tracks are NOT open to MEPN students, but only to traditional MSN students: acute care peds, acute care AGNP, acute care oncology, acute care critical care/trauma, neonatal nursing. This seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Columbia - another top school. Their Masters Direct Entry looks grueling! Again, for people with a non-nursing bachelors. 15 months (yikes!) that cover the BSN curriculum plus additional requirements to meet master's degree standards. Graduates must sit for the NCLEX exam and become RNs. MDE graduates wishing to continue on to become an NP must apply for the DNP program. Again, this seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Johns Hopkins used to have a 13 month (ouch!) and a 16 month ABSN program (I did the 16 month). However, last year they discontinued undergrad nursing education. There is now a Direct Entry MSN for individuals with a non-nursing bachelors. However, this is a rigorous program taking 2.5 years. Graduates are only able to sit for the NCLEX to earn an RN. Students wishing to become NPs must either do a post-master's certificate or a DNP. Again this seems reasonable to me.

UCLA has a MECN which is 2 years. However, grads can only sit for the NCLEX and earn an RN. Those who wish to become NPs must complete 2 years of a post master's certificate at UCLA or a DNP elsewhere.

Personally, I don't see the point of the Master's Entry programs to produce RNs. Grad school is more expensive than undergrad and RNs with an MSN don't make any more money than BSN RNs. I also don't buy into the CNL thing. However, people can spend their $ how they want.

I am ok with 3 year MSN programs where the 1st year is the equivalent of an accelerated BSN and then the last 2 years are the NP school. Again, I am sorry for any confusion on my part.

This is such a worthy conversation. I'm enjoying reading the lively responses almost as much as I'm enjoying this glass of wine. As I research PMHNP programs and their curricula, I find myself emitting loud sighs at an alarming rate. As previously mentioned in this thread (and many other NP threads on this site), what I'm looking for is an education that emphasizes complex patho and pharm on the level that I will need as a provider who will need to collaborate with MD/DOs. Rarely do the "other" courses seem like they merit a full 3 credit hours.

However, my disappointment with nursing "academia" began in my BSN education -- and I do believe some of the downfalls of conventional undergraduate nursing inform these NP programs in a significant way. Despite my BSN program's reputation in the area, I found some of the teaching and coursework to be subpar in comparison with what I had initially expected. I can forgive a few sloppy power points. I have a harder time forgiving the droning on about nursing being a superior holistic and noble profession yadda yadda care plans yadda theory yadda yadda. (I have my own vague suspicions about some of this being rooted in the gendered history of nursing, but that is for another thread and another glass of wine.)

Excuse the rambling of a tipsy RN in the corner and carry on with the discussion. *waves hands*