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 Emergency Nursing.
In my opinion is is a central part of the current debate: APN programs which have stopped securing clinical sites, in simple terms, are telling every student that they care more about money than they do about their education. The quality of the clinical portion of NP education is vital to the overall quality of the novice NP that is produced and the fact that many programs have given up control of this astounds me. We can follow the money on that one and it is fairly clear why programs are doing this in increasing numbers.

That being said, you also have quite a ways to go and haven't really gotten into the major part of your advanced practice education, which in my opinion, begins with the start of clinical rotations and the associated didactics. It might get better for you shortly.

As usual I think that BostonFNP is right on target, programs that don't or can't secure sits for their students are sending a message that tuition dollars are valued above the quality of their students education. I am a FNP student who comes in with 5+ years of RN experience (5 part time in psych and 3 part time in ED) and I have decided as much as I like psych that I want to be an ED NP. I also love to teach and plan to obtain my DNP eventually just so that I can teach and help lead an FNP program. I am taking about these issues now because I really would like to be a part of the solution in improving NP education. I think that there are some really good points being made in this discussion and I'm glad we could get it back on track.

!Chris :specs:

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
Inappropriate self disclosure is probably my biggest complaint but one of the cherries on top was a colleague's student who didn't have the insight to know a knee length flowy dress sans nylons (or heck even with nylons) and strappy flats are totally inappropriate on a locked unit with known sex offenders who also happen to be psychotic. That was the first and last student my friend precepted from that school.

Thanks for that LOL moment! This thread sure needs some levity. There's a running joke around here about certain nurses who move away from wearing scrubs to knee high leather boots paired with short skirts and nice blouses which could mean they either got a management gig or have become NP's.

As usual I think that BostonFNP is right on target, programs that don't or can't secure sits for their students are sending a message that tuition dollars are valued above the quality of their students education . . . I am taking about these issues now because I really would like to be a part of the solution in improving NP education. I think that there are some really good points being made in this discussion and I'm glad we could get it back on track.

!Chris :specs:

The best way to be part of the solution is to go to a school that provides preceptors and clinical sites. If potential students only applied to such schools, the free market would drive the less reputable schools out of business. The best approach is for the nursing community to educate potential NP students and warn them away from such schools.

In terms of schools providing preceptors, even for a top school like Hopkins, preceptors are hard to come by. While Hopkins finds preceptors and clinical sites for everyone, the school also asks students to help find more preceptors by asking NPs, MDs, DOs, and PAs if they would like to precept. As an NP community, we can help recruit preceptors for the reputable schools. Even as an NP student, I was proactive in finding new preceptors when I was on a rotation in a large facility ( I got an NP and an MD preceptors for subsequent cohorts and I was just a student!). NP students - do a great job on your clinicals and that is the best way to get other healthcare providers at your clinical site to precept additional students.

The number of NP residency programs is increasing. The VA now has NP residencies in selected hospitals and applications are accepted nationwide.

Here are links to NP residencies:

Residency Programs for Nurse Practitioners

3

Specializes in Neurology, Psychology, Family medicine.

I still lol whenever I see a statement that is short sided like the residency idea. Yeah, it's a good idea but how do you suppose we make it efficient for the thousands of graduating students. Some easy math. There are approximately 350 NP programs in the USA according to AANP. Of course, more schools will continue to pop up as the credentialing obviously is not very rigorous. Let's say on the small side each program accepts 30 students per cohort. That is 10,500 student every year graduating. This does not include programs that accept many more or the programs that have rolling admissions. Each residency accepts between 1-5 students give or take. This allows a possible 1:100 chance of getting one at best. Residency is not going to save the current model we have.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.

It's a matter of finding a source of funding. GME programs for physicians are largely publicly funded by CMS. Our university/medical center has secured funding for post-graduate training for NP's in primary care in the past and we currently have a 1-year Adult Critical Care and Surgical fellowship for AGACNP's with 2 fellows accepted each year going on it's third year now. That's the available funding the university is able to currently secure. It currently attracts a good amount of applicants but one of the downsides of such program is that the monthly stipend does not come close to what a nurse in the Bay Area can potentially make in a month. That in itself, dissuades potential talented candidates.

I still lol whenever I see a statement that is short sided like the residency idea. Yeah, it's a good idea but how do you suppose we make it efficient for the thousands of graduating students. Some easy math. There are approximately 350 NP programs in the USA according to AANP. Of course, more schools will continue to pop up as the credentialing obviously is not very rigorous. Let's say on the small side each program accepts 30 students per cohort. That is 10,500 student every year graduating. This does not include programs that accept many more or the programs that have rolling admissions. Each residency accepts between 1-5 students give or take. This allows a possible 1:100 chance of getting one at best. Residency is not going to save the current model we have.

I don't care how many NP schools there are. The crap graduates will not get hired. If there are too many NP schools, there will not be enough preceptors, so the crap schools won't get preceptors - no preceptors means no clinicals - no clinicals means students will not become NPs. Sometimes, doing nothing is the solution! We have a (somewhat free) market economy - supply and demand. If there are too many NP new grads, only the best will be hired. As other posters have indicated, there is funding enough for all the MD internships and residencies. If we can get funding for NP residences, these programs will increase. There is a glut of lawyers right now, but I doubt the new grad law students from schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UCLA, etc have trouble finding jobs!

Specializes in Emergency Nursing.
I don't care how many NP schools there are. The crap graduates will not get hired. If there are too many NP schools, there will not be enough preceptors, so the crap schools won't get preceptors - no preceptors means no clinicals - no clinicals means students will not become NPs. Sometimes, doing nothing is the solution! We have a (somewhat free) market economy - supply and demand. If there are too many NP new grads, only the best will be hired. As other posters have indicated, there is funding enough for all the MD internships and residencies. If we can get funding for NP residences, these programs will increase. There is a glut of lawyers right now, but I doubt the new grad law students from schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UCLA, etc have trouble finding jobs!

I understand the the idea of supply/demand and the concept that quality programs will produce quality graduates and only quality graduates will get jobs. However, I can't seem to get past my personal experience of seeing recently hired NPs in my faculty being poorly prepared to start in the role that they are hired for (Community ED/ER) and it is creating a preference for hiring PAs instead of NPs because it is felt that the PAs are better prepared. I think that when offices/facilities have a bad experience with a new provider because they feel like they are not well educated or prepared for their role then they tend to be quick to generalize the program where the person graduated and if it becomes a pattern then the entire profession gets blamed. The recent NP hires have come from schools with good/strong reputations, some havinf previous RN experience while others were accelerated/direct entry and they all seem equally unprepared for the role even as a novice practitioner.

I will openly acknowledge that this is only my personal experience and does not constitute as concrete evidence for anything. It is merely a single pattern in one facility, in one part of the country.

!Chris :specs: