DNP versus MD?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Aznfarmerboi

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
180
Hey, I am from the pharmacy forum and looking into medical schools. I am confused between a DNP versus a MD degree. What is the difference between both besides the name? For example. a nurse practitioner in NYS can do pretty much everything a medical doctor can besides prescribe CII. I dont see much of a difference besides the wage they can commend. I used to think that in terms of a docterate, a docterate means the highest education level of a profession. I know that there are some people saying that it is bull s* for opt. and pharmacists to get a docterate degree. However both of these fields are autonomous and different from the medical profession. How does it work with DNP since both DNP and MD have blurry lines in their profession? Do DNP's look at the field differently as DO's do?

Before some people show their canabalistics nature of the medical field, I just want to say I meant for this topic to be purely informational. I tried googling it up and researching it but nothing pops up. This is an honest question. If I sound like a troll, sorry in advance.

Members don't see this ad.
 
DNP is too new for anybody to know how to deal with it yet.

My guess is that the national nursing organizations, after they start putting out DNP grads, will start demanding FULL equivalence with doctors.

Although NPs can do most of what primary care docs do, there are a couple of "last bastions" namely surgery that are closed to NPs. I believe that the national nursing organizations dreamed up the DNP program so they could infiltrate the remaining few areas that are closed to them.

another thing I see coming is that after the DNPs start coming out, the nurses will start lobbying Congress to finance DNP residency programs. They will argue that they have doctorates just like MDs so they should be either able to create their own residency programs or merge with the ACGME MD residency system.

If the DNPs are successful in creating their own residency programs, then the nurses will have reached their goal of reaching FULL EQUIVALENCE with doctors. That will result in DNPs being surgeons, neurologists, ER docs. IN other words, all specialties will be open to them.
 
MacGyver said:
DNP is too new for anybody to know how to deal with it yet.

My guess is that the national nursing organizations, after they start putting out DNP grads, will start demanding FULL equivalence with doctors.

Although NPs can do most of what primary care docs do, there are a couple of "last bastions" namely surgery that are closed to NPs. I believe that the national nursing organizations dreamed up the DNP program so they could infiltrate the remaining few areas that are closed to them.

another thing I see coming is that after the DNPs start coming out, the nurses will start lobbying Congress to finance DNP residency programs. They will argue that they have doctorates just like MDs so they should be either able to create their own residency programs or merge with the ACGME MD residency system.

If the DNPs are successful in creating their own residency programs, then the nurses will have reached their goal of reaching FULL EQUIVALENCE with doctors. That will result in DNPs being surgeons, neurologists, ER docs. IN other words, all specialties will be open to them.


This is not meant to be a nurse bash comment, but if that is what they want, then they should become doctors. Nurses certainly have a role in medicine and huge role at that. They are very important. NP's even have a very important place in medicine in my opinion, specifically in primary care. The role they play has its own niche. It is a slippery slope to make them equivalent in every way though. Basically, that says they are the same thing. If they in fact are the same thing, then they should just become doctors. The slippery slope happens because then why not just start up another profession that works its way towards being equals maybe you can get a doctorate in radiologic technology and then be equivalent to a radiologist. See what I am saying?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
trudub said:
This is not meant to be a nurse bash comment, but if that is what they want, then they should become doctors. Nurses certainly have a role in medicine and huge role at that. They are very important. NP's even have a very important place in medicine in my opinion, specifically in primary care. The role they play has its own niche. It is a slippery slope to make them equivalent in every way though. Basically, that says they are the same thing. If they in fact are the same thing, then they should just become doctors. The slippery slope happens because then why not just start up another profession that works its way towards being equals maybe you can get a doctorate in radiologic technology and then be equivalent to a radiologist. See what I am saying?


I completely agree. I hate it when nurses are telling me how they could do a physicians job and do it better than the physician that they are working with. If you're so great, then go to medical school like the rest of us have to. It shouldn't be hard because you already know everything.
 
Hey guys I agree with you but the bottom line is these nurses are a lot more cunning than doctors gave them credit for. They know how to manipulate the system to their advantage.

Once DNPs start advocating for residency programs, they are going to go to Congress. They are going to have reams of data showing that it takes X number of weeks to schedule specialist visits. They are going to have reams of data showing that there are only X number of radiologists in a given geogaphic area.

They are going to Congress knowing how to push the right buttons in order to open up DNP residency programs. If that happens, there will be a parallel pathway to practicing medicine at ALL levels, not just FP or pediatrics. If they get their residency programs, DNPs will start going direclty after the super supspecialists like cardiologists and neurosurgeons.
 
MacGyver said:
They are going to Congress knowing how to push the right buttons in order to open up DNP residency programs. If that happens, there will be a parallel pathway to practicing medicine at ALL levels, not just FP or pediatrics. If they get their residency programs, DNPs will start going direclty after the super supspecialists like cardiologists and neurosurgeons.

They can go all the way to Texas and have dinner with Bush and his pappa', they still can never be practicing DNP neurosurgeons or cardiologists...

1. Who is going to let someone with less training or knowledge than a physician cut them up?

2. What does a DNP have to lose when he/she does goof up? (as physician's, there is a lifelong commitment to medicine that is full of years of schooling, debt, DNP's will never have this.. even if they have residency programs).

3. Nurse=Nurse, Doctor=Doctor. Social hierarchy in medical field, Doctor>Nurse. Its really very simple and I think only pre-med/med-students will ever find such a thing a legitimate threat.

It's as if dentists are afraid of dental assistants or hygentists taking over there positions.

I truly believe the specialized training of DNP's in the various fields of medicine will provide physicians with a team of specialized nurses, because again, they are nurses!

:luck:
 
When I see what is happening with NP's, DNP's, and CRNA's, the one thing that jumps out at me is that the nursing profession seems to be more innovative than than the medical one. Nursing educators see the changes in the demand and are better able to respond by producing groups of professionals who can fill those demands quickly. While they may not be doctors, these nursing professionals can do 90% of what some doctors can do and that's why they're in such great demand. Nursing school teaches more practical knowledge over theory that we get in medical school and hence why it doesn't take them as long to complete their education. With just 2 years of education, a CRNA comes out pulling down 120k! After 7 years, a primary care doc makes 150k. On the other hand, the medical field seems to have its head stuck in the sand and unwilling to change because they cling onto the idea of "tradition". I'm not advocating that doctors should be trained like nurses. Each has a different role to play. But does that mean that medical education as it is now stands can't be improved? Of course not, but there seems to be so many obstacles in the way for real change to happen. The only real innovation in medical education recently seems to be incorporating more research and PBL in the curriculum. Could medical school be cut to 3 years instead of 4? Probably, but then schools would miss out on the extra year of tuition. Could residency be shorter? Sure, but then hospitals would miss getting the 100k/year for each resident from the govt. Decades ago, residency used to be only 1 year long. It significantly got prolonged after Medicaid started to fund residency and hospitals got addicted to the residency money. Why can't medical schools develop fasttrack programs that reduce the total time for medical school and residency for students who already know what field they want to enter? Because medical schools and hospitals would lose out. At this rate, nursing groups will do the majority of primary care in this country in the next few decades. Who here really thinks that they will be happy with just primary care? Medical schools should learn from business, law, and nursing schools: innovate or become irrelevant.
 
Excellent idea, Taurus. Maybe next we can get Sally Struthers to start doing late-night infomercials for "study at home" physician degrees. University of Phoenix can then start offering internet courses. We could email patients, which would be almost just like seeing them for reals!!! We could offer the entire DVD surgery-at-home kit for only five easy payments of $39.99! AND, if they call within the next ten minutes, it's only FOUR payments!!

Please.

Health Care isn't an inventors guild or the stock market. "Innovation" isn't the point. Filling the "gaps" in health care with partially trained professionals merely lowers the bar for everyone. The one year residency you spoke of was for the GP, which is now considered undertrained and innadequate. NOT because of money, but because of the advancement in health care. If it was all about tradition, we'd still be selling wonder tonic out of the back of wagons and using ether for surgery. As health care has expanded, so has the training to keep up. Four years of medical school and minimum three years of residency isn't to fill the supposed coffers of money-grubbing programs. Is it part of it? Sure. Just as it could be argued that the invention of the DNP degree was to keep the tuition flowing and keep nurses in school longer. Take any physician fresh out of residency and pair them up against an FP or PA fresh out of training, and we'll see who trips over themselves. After that, you tell me who's been training too long when it's your life on the line.
 
MacGyver said:
DNP is too new for anybody to know how to deal with it yet.

My guess is that the national nursing organizations, after they start putting out DNP grads, will start demanding FULL equivalence with doctors.

in other words, they will start sueing hospitals if only MDs are allowed to be dept chairs, or if DNPs are not allowed to do surgery.

Although NPs can do most of what primary care docs do, there are a couple of "last bastions" namely surgery that are closed to NPs. I believe that the national nursing organizations dreamed up the DNP program so they could infiltrate the remaining few areas that are closed to them.

Ohhh okay thanks.
 
OrnotMajestic said:
Excellent idea, Taurus. Maybe next we can get Sally Struthers to start doing late-night infomercials for "study at home" physician degrees. University of Phoenix can then start offering internet courses. We could email patients, which would be almost just like seeing them for reals!!! We could offer the entire DVD surgery-at-home kit for only five easy payments of $39.99! AND, if they call within the next ten minutes, it's only FOUR payments!!

Please.

Health Care isn't an inventors guild or the stock market. "Innovation" isn't the point. Filling the "gaps" in health care with partially trained professionals merely lowers the bar for everyone. The one year residency you spoke of was for the GP, which is now considered undertrained and innadequate. NOT because of money, but because of the advancement in health care. If it was all about tradition, we'd still be selling wonder tonic out of the back of wagons and using ether for surgery. As health care has expanded, so has the training to keep up. Four years of medical school and minimum three years of residency isn't to fill the supposed coffers of money-grubbing programs. Is it part of it? Sure. Just as it could be argued that the invention of the DNP degree was to keep the tuition flowing and keep nurses in school longer. Take any physician fresh out of residency and pair them up against an FP or PA fresh out of training, and we'll see who trips over themselves. After that, you tell me who's been training too long when it's your life on the line.

When no other field is challenging you for your position, then you can become complacent like you are now. Neurosurgeons, urologists, and cardiologists, to name a few fields, don't have to worry about any nursing groups doing their jobs. But what about family medicine and internal medicine, the groups that do primary care in this country, and anesthesiologists? While I'm sure that there will always be these types of docs around, there are nursing groups which can do practically the same job. They see their own patients and have prescribing powers. In fact, next time you go to a Wal-Mart, you might see a health clinic with an NP staffed there. They can do the run of the mill cases which is the majority of the patients they see and if they can't they simply refer to a doc. What does that do to the job market for these docs? Reduce the job opportunities and salaries. If you haven't figured it out yet, doctor jobs and pay like any other profession in the world is controlled by supply and demand. Doctors always seem to have jobs because the medical organizations tightly control the supply of the doctors to match expected demand. Unfortunately, they more often miss their mark. That "shortage" of primary care doctors was artificially created by the AMA and its ilk because they anticipated a "surplus" of doctors a few years ago and badly miscalculated. This opens the door to nursing groups seizing more power. Dentists, with just 4 years of training, on average now make more than family docs, who have 7 years of training. With just 2 years, CRNA's make 120k! So what you say? Let's think about that. Would most people be willing to go through an additional 3 years of training to make less than someone who went through only 4? Probably not. Then why do most people go to medical school then? Because most would want to go into a field where they can get paid a lot more for all those years of training. You will have those few who would do medicine for nothing, but I'm talking about most people. Let's see if my hypothesis is right. What are the least and most competitive medical residencies? Least: family medicine, internal medicine. Most: derm, ortho, ent, rads. Why do you suppose family medicine and internal medicine (assuming no fellowship) are not competitive? But you may say, anesthesiology is competitive, right!? Sure, for now because a rising tide lifts all boats. There aren't enough CRNA's and anesthiologists to around, but what will happen when the suppy of CRNA's increase significantly? Without enough doctors to fill particular roles, other professional groups will fill the void and therefore gain powers and authority that were once done by doctors. Don't be surprised if DNP's demand the same authority as primary care docs. If the medical community wants to reverse the situation, then they need to change the way they educate future physicians. They need to be innovative at all stages of training. While doctors can't be trained in as little time as nurses, why can't we try to close the gap somewhat? In other countries like European ones, medical school is integrated in college. I think that there are many things that the medical community could explore to breathe in some fresh ideas in medical education. Otherwise, keep your head stuck in the sand and watch other groups eat your lunch.
 
Taurus said:
I think that there are many things that the medical community could explore to breathe in some fresh ideas in medical education. Otherwise, keep your head stuck in the sand and watch other groups eat your lunch.

I agree 100%

We need to outcompete the others entering the market by increasing numbers of physicians and establishing laws that only MDs can do certain procedures. What do anesthesiologists do when there market is threatened, they get smaller and start managing the others instead of growing and outcompeting. This keeps individual salaries for docs up, and quality of healthcare for all down. ANd its only made worse by having such small class sizes at MD schools.
 
I'm going to represent a minority view here, and probably will catch a lot of heat for it, but here goes...

Most (though not all) people who chose to go to medical school with primary care in mind do so because they have some notion of wanting to make a difference in their patients' lives. They (myself included) want to be able to meaningfully affect behavioral change, stop or slow disease processes, fix injuries, and feel good about the fact that they are improving the quality of life of their patients by promoting and maintaining good health. Many of us envision also having a meaningful physician-patient relationship, in which we actually know our clients.

In today's world of managed care, the "traditional" doctor-patient relationship is under attack. Physicians are pressured to deliver care in ways that go beyond efficiency to downright rushed interactions. The bulk of the average doctor's time is no longer comprised of face-to-face time with the patient. It is a hectic schedule of managing paperwork and reimbursement, charting and billing, and guarding obsessively to prevent malpractice suits (a real reality). What is lost is the humanistic, caring part of health care.

That role has been increasingly taken up by other medical staff. Nurses, clinic assistants, PAs, NPs, and other advanced nursing staff are becoming the major providers of healthcare (excluding the most technical aspects, such as advanced surgery). This is inevitable: the average doctor could not possibly take on the responsibility of all of these tasks and still practice in a financially viable manner. The doctor is becoming more of an overseer of health care, while the actual providers--the people who take the histories, do the vital signs, perform the exams, do the minor procedures, give the information, prescribe the medications, have the real relationships with the patients, are other staff. I'm not saying that this is the ideal model, but it is generally a reality. Think about when you go to the doctor. You probably see about three other people before you even get to a doctor--if you even do see a doctor--and then it's probably for less than 5 minutes.

The major question, then, is is this a bad thing? I'm going to be a devil's advocate and suggest that maybe it's not. It's interesting to me that in response to this trend, so many of you take a clearly negative position towards other medical professionals. While you may feel that your job or salary is being threatened, I assure you that there is still a very real need for doctors, and I don't see it as likely that doctors will be out of their jobs anytime soon. Furthermore, it is impossible to deny that there is a real shortage of nurses and other similarly educated medical professional staff. Why wouldn't we as physicians or future physicians want to encourage the benefits that will hopefully draw more people into these careers? After all, we need them if we are to practice (primary) care in the current dominant model. It is true that physicians face tremendous financial burdens and years of hardship during and immediately after their very long educations. But we must be careful not to loose sight of our mission. We are, after all, here to serve our patients, not ourselves. And if re-structuring professional heirarchies will result in better, more compassionate, more accessible, and less expensive care for our patients, shouldn't we be open to that idea for consideration? Isn't it possible that one of the factors that drives up health care costs is the investment that occurs in physician education and the subsequent need for docs to garner big salaries to make up for massive debt? What if it other medical staff can take on more tasks that a physician used to do? What if it cost less to educate medical staff? Would medical costs decrease?

Finally-and I apologize for rambling on and on- I just want to implore my future colleagues to maintain the highest levels of professional respect to nurses, NPs, PAs, DNPs, etc. They provide a valuable service, and it is unfortunate that I have often witnessed rather self-important egos treating them badly or excessively paternalistically. Many are stellar providers, more responsive to their patients' needs, better practiced thorough experience, and as dedicated as any MD. Having the medical support staff fully on your side is always beneficial. After all, it may one day be a vigilant nurse who catches the mistake that could have ruined your career.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
People expect that when they get sick a doctor will take care of them. The public does not view seeing a doctor as a privelege but rather as a right....and it is.

I don't think the public will ever stand for this type of medical mediocrity.
 
Just in case you guys don't know, NP school is a nothing like medical school! There may be some NPs who can do a decent job in some areas, but let me tell you, their education is roughly equal to about one semester of medical school. And, no, I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

I think one of the biggest problems that we as doctors and future doctors have is that we don't really understand how poor their education is. Scary. They may be more clinical astute than a third year medical student, but the curve flattens out and drops off pretty fast.

And for the NPs about to post here, I've been there, done that, please spare us the defensive comments unless you can say the same. This of course will never happen because the comments I have heard from all former NPs, PAs, and CRNAs that go to medical school is that it's frightening how much they didn't know and didn't realize how much they didn't know.

This is a really big issue facing our futures and we better get more active. There are a lot of other groups that want nothing more than to lobby for equal practice rights without doing the work. It's gonna get ugly.
 
i could be wrong, but i don't think an MD is considered a "doctorate degree" per se...which might be why going to medical school is considered your "undergraduate medical education" and that your internship/residency is your "graduate" work. then again, everyone goes through an internship/residency, so it might be a moot point. yet another reason to go for MD/PhD...
 
Of course it is.

"Undergraduate" means exactly that, before you graduate. Residency is after you graduate and it therefore "graduate" education.
 
chicklett1 said:
I'm going to represent a minority view here, and probably will catch a lot of heat for it, but here goes...

Most (though not all) people who chose to go to medical school with primary care in mind do so because they have some notion of wanting to make a difference in their patients' lives. They (myself included) want to be able to meaningfully affect behavioral change, stop or slow disease processes, fix injuries, and feel good about the fact that they are improving the quality of life of their patients by promoting and maintaining good health. Many of us envision also having a meaningful physician-patient relationship, in which we actually know our clients.

In today's world of managed care, the "traditional" doctor-patient relationship is under attack. Physicians are pressured to deliver care in ways that go beyond efficiency to downright rushed interactions. The bulk of the average doctor's time is no longer comprised of face-to-face time with the patient. It is a hectic schedule of managing paperwork and reimbursement, charting and billing, and guarding obsessively to prevent malpractice suits (a real reality). What is lost is the humanistic, caring part of health care.

That role has been increasingly taken up by other medical staff. Nurses, clinic assistants, PAs, NPs, and other advanced nursing staff are becoming the major providers of healthcare (excluding the most technical aspects, such as advanced surgery). This is inevitable: the average doctor could not possibly take on the responsibility of all of these tasks and still practice in a financially viable manner. The doctor is becoming more of an overseer of health care, while the actual providers--the people who take the histories, do the vital signs, perform the exams, do the minor procedures, give the information, prescribe the medications, have the real relationships with the patients, are other staff. I'm not saying that this is the ideal model, but it is generally a reality. Think about when you go to the doctor. You probably see about three other people before you even get to a doctor--if you even do see a doctor--and then it's probably for less than 5 minutes.

The major question, then, is is this a bad thing? I'm going to be a devil's advocate and suggest that maybe it's not. It's interesting to me that in response to this trend, so many of you take a clearly negative position towards other medical professionals. While you may feel that your job or salary is being threatened, I assure you that there is still a very real need for doctors, and I don't see it as likely that doctors will be out of their jobs anytime soon. Furthermore, it is impossible to deny that there is a real shortage of nurses and other similarly educated medical professional staff. Why wouldn't we as physicians or future physicians want to encourage the benefits that will hopefully draw more people into these careers? After all, we need them if we are to practice (primary) care in the current dominant model. It is true that physicians face tremendous financial burdens and years of hardship during and immediately after their very long educations. But we must be careful not to loose sight of our mission. We are, after all, here to serve our patients, not ourselves. And if re-structuring professional heirarchies will result in better, more compassionate, more accessible, and less expensive care for our patients, shouldn't we be open to that idea for consideration? Isn't it possible that one of the factors that drives up health care costs is the investment that occurs in physician education and the subsequent need for docs to garner big salaries to make up for massive debt? What if it other medical staff can take on more tasks that a physician used to do? What if it cost less to educate medical staff? Would medical costs decrease?

Finally-and I apologize for rambling on and on- I just want to implore my future colleagues to maintain the highest levels of professional respect to nurses, NPs, PAs, DNPs, etc. They provide a valuable service, and it is unfortunate that I have often witnessed rather self-important egos treating them badly or excessively paternalistically. Many are stellar providers, more responsive to their patients' needs, better practiced thorough experience, and as dedicated as any MD. Having the medical support staff fully on your side is always beneficial. After all, it may one day be a vigilant nurse who catches the mistake that could have ruined your career.

Your response reads like an essay for being admitted to medical school, full of idealism and not much real world experience. That's not a knock on you. It's just what you've experienced up to this point in your life. Of course, no matter what healthcare group you belong to, the patient's well-being takes precedence over any turf battles and we need to work together as a team to make it happen. That is not being debated. What we are debating though is how that team should ideally be composed. Fastforward yourself 7 years from now when you're finishing your family medicine residency. For taking on $250k in debt and spending 7 years of some of the best years of your life, you, or at least most people, would expect a good job with good security and pay waiting for you. You've made a huge investment after all! What if that is no longer the case? What if you have a difficult time finding a job because hospitals now prefer to staff with NP's and PA's for primary care? Or, the hospital will hire you, but you get paid not much more than the PA or NP who only went through 2 years of post-undergrad schooling (and hence less debt) while you spent 7 years. Or, your job is not that secure anymore because primary care practitioners are a dime a dozen? Wouldn't you feel foolish for becoming a doc when you could have just become a PA or NP to basically do the same job while having less debt and not wasting those extra years? This scenario is not as far-fetched as it may sound. It happens when you suddenly increase the supply of professionals who can do the same job and as a result the supply and demand curve is shifted. I can't predict when the scenario will come to fruition, but the laws of economics make no special exception just because you're a doctor. I've already seen it happen in other industries. Over the past decade, companies have been very aggressive in outsourcing work to other countries or importing workers into this country. These globalization trends have a negative impact on US workers because whereas before you were competing against the guy down the street you are now competing against the guy on the other side of the world and he's willing to work for less than McDonald's wages. How do you compete against that? You can't. While medical organizations closely regulate the number of doctors produced to keep the salaries high, do the nursing groups do the same? I doubt it. They'll just keep pumping out more of these PA's and NP's as long as people are willing to enroll and pay the tuition. In the time it takes to produce 1 primary care doc, 3.5 PA's and NP's are made. Why do you suppose that there are so many freaking law and business schools in this country? Because most of the schools are just after the tuition money. Only the grads from the top programs get the top jobs while most others eek out a very average living. Is that what you want to happen to medicine?

I won't comment on the quality of care as others have already. I assume that someone who has at least 7 years of training and passed umpteen tests can provide higher quality of care than someone with only 2 years.
 
Taurus said:
What if you have a difficult time finding a job because hospitals now prefer to staff with NP's and PA's for primary care?....This scenario is not as far-fetched as it may sound...

Not far fetched at all. Just read Panda Bear's blog about the now defunked Duke Family Medicine program. They basically watered down the family medicine program to make it the same experience as all the many NPs and PAs were getting. Best detail, was to call the residents "providers" or "learners" so as not to offend the other "providers" :rolleyes:

Not surprisingly the program is now shut down. If you make PC MD's the same as NPs/PAs/etc then what's the point of having the more advanced degree?
 
Taurus said:
Is that what you want to happen to medicine?

What we should be concerned about happening to medicine is newly minted DNPs going out into autonomous practice woefully underprepared - while believing (because they were told so everyday at DNP school) that their education was very much equal to that of a MD. Take a look at some of the DNP course schedules - you'll find that they have 2-3x as much 'nursing theory' filler as they do real pathology/physiology/pharmacology - most average somewhere around 3-6 credit hours TOTAL of each. This is about much more than just money...it is not in the patients best interest (even in underserved areas) to allow an individual with a less than adequate education to practice independently - period. And if (when?) DNPs achieve full independent practice rights why should we believe that they will be any more willing to practice in rural/underserved regions or practice for less money than MD GPs - especially when they are considered the equivalent as a MD?
 
Sinnman said:
I think one of the biggest problems that we as doctors and future doctors have is that we don't really understand how poor their education is. Scary. They may be more clinical astute than a third year medical student, but the curve flattens out and drops off pretty fast.

Very true, I was at a Kaplan office the other day and while I was waiting I started flipping through the Nursing exam (NCLEX or something?) As a soon to be 3rd year student with next to zero clinical experience I was surprised by how clinical it was. I found myself taking educated guesses on a lot of the questions, and as for the questions I knew--my clinical knowledge was at the level they were testing and in no way beyond it.

But what wasn't on that exam was any of the stuff that had been on my Step 1 exam or even the MCAT. Nurses get a lot of practical information straight away, but they don't get the foundation needed to really understand disease and manage cases.

That said, as a soon to be 3rd year I know approximately dick about practical clinical issues. Aside from learning from the residents and attendings, I plan to try and learn as much as I possibly can from any RN/NP/PA/whatever that will put up with me :laugh:
 
If the DNPs want GME level training, perhaps they should be permitted to take USMLE (both steps 1 and 2) and compete in the match.

Because all this debate over this degree vs that degree is moot. Board certification is still a major standard.
 
etf said:
i could be wrong, but i don't think an MD is considered a "doctorate degree" per se...which might be why going to medical school is considered your "undergraduate medical education" and that your internship/residency is your "graduate" work. then again, everyone goes through an internship/residency, so it might be a moot point. yet another reason to go for MD/PhD...

This is actually quite interesting as there are many "doctorate" degrees out there beside the good old Ph.D. MD is definitely considered a "doctorate" degree for sure. See this in Wikipedia if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate
 
beastmaster said:
If the DNPs want GME level training, perhaps they should be permitted to take USMLE (both steps 1 and 2) and compete in the match.

Because all this debate over this degree vs that degree is moot. Board certification is still a major standard.


Well GME is not required to practice medicine. NPs do it all day long in primary care fields and they have neither GME training, board certification, or USMLE credentials.

The real problem here is that state nursing boards have sole authority to define what their scope of practice is. Tehy can define surgery as "nursing" practice if they want to, and the state medical boards have no control over it. Thats how they got this far.
 
The other thing that I find unfair and frankly dangerous is this. I heard this from a doctor one time who was talking about NP's specifically. I have no other knowledge of this, so if this is incorrect, kindly correct me. What he told me was that when it comes to standards of care and thus malpractice, NP's are held to nursing standards. As a result, lets say an NP is running an ER solo in some small town and a man presents with substernal chest pain radiating to his left arm. The man is having an MI. The medical diagnosis is myocardial infarction. The medical standard would be to make that diagnosis. However, the nursing diagnosis in this case is pain. Pain is an acceptable nursing diagnosis. As a result, from a standards of care point of view, this NP could completely miss the MI and as long as she correctly managed "Pain" then she met her standards. That seems dangerous. The same is not true of PA's who are held to medical standards.
 
velo said:
Very true, I was at a Kaplan office the other day and while I was waiting I started flipping through the Nursing exam (NCLEX or something?) As a soon to be 3rd year student with next to zero clinical experience I was surprised by how clinical it was. I found myself taking educated guesses on a lot of the questions, and as for the questions I knew--my clinical knowledge was at the level they were testing and in no way beyond it.

But what wasn't on that exam was any of the stuff that had been on my Step 1 exam or even the MCAT. Nurses get a lot of practical information straight away, but they don't get the foundation needed to really understand disease and manage cases.

That said, as a soon to be 3rd year I know approximately dick about practical clinical issues. Aside from learning from the residents and attendings, I plan to try and learn as much as I possibly can from any RN/NP/PA/whatever that will put up with me :laugh:

You do know that NCLEX-RN is quite a different exam from the certification exam to be an NP?

Of course you don't. Because if you did, you wouldn't try to compare the education of an MS-II with that of a new grad RN.
 
trudub said:
The other thing that I find unfair and frankly dangerous is this. I heard this from a doctor one time who was talking about NP's specifically. I have no other knowledge of this, so if this is incorrect, kindly correct me. What he told me was that when it comes to standards of care and thus malpractice, NP's are held to nursing standards. As a result, lets say an NP is running an ER solo in some small town and a man presents with substernal chest pain radiating to his left arm. The man is having an MI. The medical diagnosis is myocardial infarction. The medical standard would be to make that diagnosis. However, the nursing diagnosis in this case is pain. Pain is an acceptable nursing diagnosis. As a result, from a standards of care point of view, this NP could completely miss the MI and as long as she correctly managed "Pain" then she met her standards. That seems dangerous. The same is not true of PA's who are held to medical standards.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Good grief, I hate it when people post about nursing but don't know anything about it. An RN in the ED (not an NP, "just" an RN) would roast on a stake for missing signs of an MI, let alone an advanced practice nurse like an NP.
 
fab4fan said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Good grief, I hate it when people post about nursing but don't know anything about it. An RN in the ED (not an NP, "just" an RN) would roast on a stake for missing signs of an MI, let alone an advanced practice nurse like an NP.

I think that is a common misconception. Since the doctor first mentioned it to me, I have asked this question to several other doctors, and each of them have confirmed it. Now, I do have a small sampling probably five doctors but each have confirmed it. Just as people were saying before, nurses are governed by nursing boards and as such they are governed by nursing standards. Nurse practicioners still fall under this heading. As I said, this may be incorrect, I have never sought a definitive source but the five or so doctors I have talked to have all said the same thing. In fact, my girlfriend is an NP student and she asked this question for me to one of her professors who is an NP and the professor was just very vague and said NP are governed by nursing boards. That is all she would say.
 
I can tell you most assuredly that an NP who simply diagnosed "pain" in someone with an evolving MI would most definitely be held accountable. You are held to the standard of care of your level of practice. Pain would not fly as an acceptable diagnosis.
 
Aznfarmerboi said:
I know that there are some people saying that it is bull s* for opt. and pharmacists to get a docterate degree. However both of these fields are autonomous and different from the medical profession.

OT but the PharmDs here rule. They often round with the medicine team and help the medicine physicians with med plans. The PharmDs are an invaluable resource to the prescribing physician and more than worthy of their doctorate.
 
zzyzx said:
how would they be held accountable? what kind of legal action would be taken? just curious..

Nurses are employees and their employees are liable. If they are not employees, they will have to carry their own malpractice insurance.
 
saradoor said:
Nurses are employees and their employees are liable. If they are not employees, they will have to carry their own malpractice insurance.

That is correct, but what are the standards of care for NP's. I am not saying I am correct and if I am wrong I would like someone to show me otherwise. I just want to know, when a lawyer sets out to litigate against an NP, what are the standards of care that he must prove she/he was negligent of?
 
trudub said:
That is correct, but what are the standards of care for NP's. I am not saying I am correct and if I am wrong I would like someone to show me otherwise. I just want to know, when a lawyer sets out to litigate against an NP, what are the standards of care that he must prove she/he was negligent of?

Medical negligence is a grey area. From all the cases that I have seen, it generally comes down to what your *competent* peers think you should have done but didn't given what was presented at the time of treatment. So basically your lawyer(s) and their lawyer(s) will each present *expert* witnesses and let the judge and jury decide which side is right. That's why lawyers make more, much more, than MDs :(

These sites provide some intro to this topic for those who are interested:
 
saradoor said:
Medical negligence is a grey area. From all the cases that I have seen, it generally comes down to what your *competent* peers think you should have done but didn't given what was presented at the time of treatment. So basically your lawyer(s) and their lawyer(s) will each present *expert* witnesses and let the judge and jury decide which side is right. That's why lawyers make more, much more, than MDs :(

These sites provide some intro to this topic for those who are interested:

That was the point of the doctors who I have talked to. The expert witnesses will testify according to nursing standards of care.
 
zzyzx said:
how would they be held accountable? what kind of legal action would be taken? just curious..

If found negligent, the BON could suspend/revoke the NP's license. Not just bust him/her down the ranks to a regular RN, I mean suspend/revoke his/her nursing license. Any malpractice claims would fall on the NP's shoulders, too.

I get a quarterly newsletter from my BON. In addition to disciplinary actions for the usual drug dependence/DUI offenses, the BON can and does take action against licenses for failure to follow the standard of care for that nurse's level of licensure.

Believe it or not, a nurse's license stands on its own. If I make a mistake and in the process harm a pt., the buck stops with me. I can't palm it off on the pt's doc, even if the mistake was the result of, say, a bad order/illegible handwriting, etc.
 
trudub said:
That is correct, but what are the standards of care for NP's. I am not saying I am correct and if I am wrong I would like someone to show me otherwise. I just want to know, when a lawyer sets out to litigate against an NP, what are the standards of care that he must prove she/he was negligent of?

The standards of care would depend upon the specialty the NP practices and to a degree the state where the NP is practicing. A pediatric NP would have some differences in standards of care compared with, say, a geriatric NP.
 
trudub said:
That was the point of the doctors who I have talked to. The expert witnesses will testify according to nursing standards of care.

You say that like an NP can just harm pts. left and right and not be held accountable. If you had a working knowledge of this topic, you would understand that this is not the case. Nurses can and do lose their licenses every day for not meeting the standards of care. You'd also understand that a mistake YOU make, which is not caught by a nurse, could result in the nurse losing her license, as well as getting sued for malpractice.

I don't mean to imply that nurses have it so much harder than doctors. But your posts are heading toward suggesting that nurses little/no accountability for their actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you really want to know about nurses/NPs, why not talk to one of them, instead of getting your info. from another doctor? Doctors often have no clue what nursing is all about.
 
fab4fan said:
You say that like an NP can just harm pts. left and right and not be held accountable. If you had a working knowledge of this topic, you would understand that this is not the case. Nurses can and do lose their licenses every day for not meeting the standards of care. You'd also understand that a mistake YOU make, which is not caught by a nurse, could result in the nurse losing her license, as well as getting sued for malpractice.

I don't mean to imply that nurses have it so much harder than doctors. But your posts are heading toward suggesting that nurses little/no accountability for their actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you really want to know about nurses/NPs, why not talk to one of them, instead of getting your info. from another doctor? Doctors often have no clue what nursing is all about.

I am not saying that a nurse/NP can do something negligient. I am just saying that what is considered negligient is different. As I previously posted, my girlfriend is an NP student and I had her ask one of her professors about this topic and she sort of dodged the question saying that NP's are governed by nursing boards and as a result are held to nursing standards of care. In addition, the doctor that originally told me this was made aware of this through a conversation with an NP that worked in his office. So, don't act like I have not made an effort to get to the bottom of it not only through doctors but also through NP's. I also want to say that this is not intended to be an attack on NP's or nurses in general. My girlfriend is a nurse, my mother is nurse, my aunt is a nurse. Trust me, I have a lot of respect for nurses and think they play a valuable role in the health care system. However, I think there seem to be several accountability issues. The issue of what the schooling is like or what the roles should be for NP's and such are separate issues. I am merely saying that there seems to be a discrepancy in accountability according to what I have been told by doctors and through the grapevine from NP's.
 
In all honesty, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I in fact hope that the accountability issue does not exist and that the doctor who originally told me was misinformed. I was just hoping someone could provide some more concrete resources, so I am playing devil's advocate until then.
 
fab4fan said:
You do know that NCLEX-RN is quite a different exam from the certification exam to be an NP?

Of course you don't. Because if you did, you wouldn't try to compare the education of an MS-II with that of a new grad RN.

I'm sorry, I was trying to make a general comment about nursing vs. MD education and pointing out that nurses get very practical training straight away while MDs get much more theory and fundemental physiology/pathology/pharm/pathophys and other basic sciences that don't start with 'p.'

I can see how you misinterpreted my comment, but I also think a big part of it is how defensive you clearly are about this subject.

It might have been more constructive to respond to my point rather than point out that I didn't match up the right nursing exam with the right nursing degree. Do you disagree that nurses get a more practical education with little science? Based on the description of the NP curriculum someone posted it sounded like it was, in fact, heavy on "nursing theory" and pretty light on the aforementioned sciences, beginning with 'p' and otherwise.

Anyway, you don't have to be snippy is all I'm saying.
 
Reflexive defenseiveness developed after a few years of watching you guys talk trash about nurses. It's hard to take many questions seriously after watching yeat another thread about nurses and doctors wurn into a full-on flamefest.
 
velo said:
I'm sorry, I was trying to make a general comment about nursing vs. MD education and pointing out that nurses get very practical training straight away while MDs get much more theory and fundemental physiology/pathology/pharm/pathophys and other basic sciences that don't start with 'p.'

I can see how you misinterpreted my comment, but I also think a big part of it is how defensive you clearly are about this subject.

It might have been more constructive to respond to my point rather than point out that I didn't match up the right nursing exam with the right nursing degree. Do you disagree that nurses get a more practical education with little science? Based on the description of the NP curriculum someone posted it sounded like it was, in fact, heavy on "nursing theory" and pretty light on the aforementioned sciences, beginning with 'p' and otherwise.

Anyway, you don't have to be snippy is all I'm saying.

Many NPs I know took additional sciences that weren't required precisely because they wanted to learn more. Program requirements vary depending on where you're taking them

And it might have been more constructive of you to have avoided the whole apple/orange comparison to begin with.

I do agree that there should be more science in nursing programs, particulary in advanced practice programs. Though I'm not an NP, I would love to take an A&P class and a physical assessment class taught by an MD/DO.

Diseases should be taught by both the nursing faculty and physicians. I don't know if any NP program does this, but I think the NP should follow the physician just as med students, PAs, 'terns, residents do.

I guess my ideal school would borrow heavily from both disciplines.
 
fab4fan said:
Reflexive defenseiveness developed after a few years of watching you guys talk trash about nurses. It's hard to take many questions seriously after watching yeat another thread about nurses and doctors wurn into a full-on flamefest.

I don't see how I've done anything close to trash-talking. I just said nursing education is very practical and the NCLEX I flipped through was almost all clinical knowledge.

And what have other posters said? Doctors and nurses aren't the same? Complaints about turf wars? Take it as a compliment, doctors say the same thing about other doctors in different specialties moving in on their procedures. Take this thread and replace the terms 'doctor' with 'vascular surgeon', 'NP' with 'cardiologist', and 'primary care' with 'intraluminal vascular stenting' and this debate is just your run-of-the-mill turf war. I just don't see what's to get all defensive about...
 
trudub said:
I am not saying that a nurse/NP can do something negligient. I am just saying that what is considered negligient is different. As I previously posted, my girlfriend is an NP student and I had her ask one of her professors about this topic and she sort of dodged the question saying that NP's are governed by nursing boards and as a result are held to nursing standards of care. In addition, the doctor that originally told me this was made aware of this through a conversation with an NP that worked in his office. So, don't act like I have not made an effort to get to the bottom of it not only through doctors but also through NP's. I also want to say that this is not intended to be an attack on NP's or nurses in general. My girlfriend is a nurse, my mother is nurse, my aunt is a nurse. Trust me, I have a lot of respect for nurses and think they play a valuable role in the health care system. However, I think there seem to be several accountability issues. The issue of what the schooling is like or what the roles should be for NP's and such are separate issues. I am merely saying that there seems to be a discrepancy in accountability according to what I have been told by doctors and through the grapevine from NP's.

Like I said, maybe you should research the topic; go to the various sites that represent nurses withing their chosen specialty. Word of mouth isn't always reali
 
fab4fan said:
Like I said, maybe you should research the topic; go to the various sites that represent nurses withing their chosen specialty. Word of mouth isn't always reali

That is what I have been asking for all along. Point me to the sites. Because word of mouth so far has included 2 NP's and a handful of doctors all saying the same thing. That was exactly what I was looking for when I brought this up, please point me in the right direction. I did not mean to start a war either. I think you got way too defensive way too early. I WANT you to correct me because I am hoping I have MISINFORMATION. So, if you could help me out, I would appreciate it.
 
I know this is one isolated case but it still makes a point about the increasing roles that NPs have and will have in the future. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2077863

MONTGOMERY, Ala. Jun 14, 2006 (AP)— An abortion clinic surrendered its license Wednesday amid allegations that a woman delivered a nearly full-term stillborn baby after a staff member gave her an abortion-inducing drug without a doctor present.

Summit Medical Center in Birmingham has been closed since the Alabama Department of Health suspended its operations on May 17, citing numerous violations of health rules, said Rick Harris, director of the state agency's bureau of provider standards.

State health officials have said a clinic staff member, rather than a doctor, performed an ultrasound in February on a woman seeking an abortion and mistakenly determined she was six weeks pregnant. She was nearly full term.

The nurse practitioner then gave the woman the RU 486 abortion drug even though the woman's blood pressure was dangerously high.

The woman went to an emergency room six days later and delivered a 6-pound stillborn baby, according to a state health department report.

Attorney General Troy King and the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners are investigating the clinic, which could face criminal charges.

The board has banned Dr. Deborah Lyn Levich and nurse practitioner Janet F. Onthank King from working together and accused Levich of allowing her nurse practitioner to prescribe drugs and render services for which she was not approved.

Calls to a lawyer who has represented the clinic were not returned Wednesday.
 
Taurus said:
Nursing school teaches more practical knowledge over theory that we get in medical school and hence why it doesn't take them as long to complete their education. With just 2 years of education, a CRNA comes out pulling down 120k! After 7 years, a primary care doc makes 150k.



That is not the education length of a CRNA. Get your facts straight.
 
rn29306 said:
That is not the education length of a CRNA. Get your facts straight.

Ah good job. Don't post the correct figures or anything--just act all indignant that he's sooo ignorant, and insure that he stays that way by not giving him the facts you're so outraged he doesn't have :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't worry about nurses taking over doctoring. They still have a lot of nursing positions to fill and once they do they'll have to justify replacing individuals that spend college, medical school, and residency learning the vectors of disease. I tutored a couple nurses and date a nurse, they have a very surface level understanding of medicine. (when your having a hard time getting through first and second semester chemistry your not going to threaten my career).
Thank god for nurses but if a doctor and nurse differ is opinion I think the doctor wins by default.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top