M.D. vs. D.N.P.

[druggeek]

---

Members don't see this ad.

But, it isn't being regulated well. It is chaos on the nursing side of things. Have you looked at all the possible degrees and titles? Its nuts! The nursing profession cannot even agree what should be the standard for education for an RN. Is it an associates? Bachelors? Just pass the NCLEX? Now, DNP for advanced practice when it was a master's just recently.

Hell all of medicine is rampant with people trying to get a larger scope. Naturopaths in oregon can now prescribe antibiotics. optometrists are getting surgical priviledges in some states. pharmacists want to play a role in diagnosis. CRNAs want to do pain medicine and practice completely independently in all states. Etc etc etc. It is a cluster****.

So, excuse those of us who are putting in a decade of education, for getting annoyed that less well trained individuals want to do the same thing.

How dumb are people to even let a non-physician do a physician's job on them? I wouldnt even let a CRNA get me anesthesia for the most basic/routine/easiest operation. Let alone letting an optometrist do anything surgical.

 

[sylvanthus]

How dumb are people to even let a non-physician do a physician's job on them? I wouldnt even let a CRNA get me anesthesia for the most basic/routine/easiest operation. Let alone letting an optometrist do anything surgical.

The public doesnt know what a DO is do you really think they have a clue what all of our titles are and who does what? If a DNP walks in and says im Doctor Bob, do you think the patient is going to try and figure out what kind of doctor or assume that means physician? Or is about to get surgery from Doctor Dan who just happens to be an optometrist, not an opthalmologist. Most people are too stupid and misinformed to know the difference. The blurring of responsibilities is not helping things.

 

[sliceofbread136]

But, it isn't being regulated well. It is chaos on the nursing side of things. Have you looked at all the possible degrees and titles? Its nuts! The nursing profession cannot even agree what should be the standard for education for an RN. Is it an associates? Bachelors? Just pass the NCLEX? Now, DNP for advanced practice when it was a master's just recently.

Hell all of medicine is rampant with people trying to get a larger scope. Naturopaths in oregon can now prescribe antibiotics. optometrists are getting surgical priviledges in some states. pharmacists want to play a role in diagnosis. CRNAs want to do pain medicine and practice completely independently in all states. Etc etc etc. It is a cluster****.

So, excuse those of us who are putting in a decade of education, for getting annoyed that less well trained individuals want to do the same thing.

Well I agree, it should be better regulated. What you don't seem to get is that DNPs should be getting training for the specific duties that they perform. Things they aren't trained for falls under the responsibility of the doctor.

High HIV risk patient comes in with flu like symptoms. Wanna bet how likely it is the DNP/NP/whatever crap theyre called will tell the person to get some rest and completely overlook the possibility of the patient being in an acute HIV infection phase? Even in primary care these wannabes will screw up quite a bit, are we going to say "oh well, **** happens?" Just cause some nurses want to be doctors?

Well if they are given the proper training to work in a primary care position then they shouldn't overlook it.

Imo, we are in a time of transition (which you may not like, but I don't think there is any turning back). Transition=temporary confusion. In time, the responsibilites of DNPs with respect to doctors will be more clear, and it should provide easier access to healthcare and be an overall improvement.

I don't doubt that some nurses are on a power trip and demand that their role be equivalent to a physician, but I have a hard time believing the majority of DNPs are like that.

 

[The Imprisoned]

But, it isn't being regulated well. It is chaos on the nursing side of things. Have you looked at all the possible degrees and titles? Its nuts! The nursing profession cannot even agree what should be the standard for education for an RN. Is it an associates? Bachelors? Just pass the NCLEX? Now, DNP for advanced practice when it was a master's just recently.

Hell all of medicine is rampant with people trying to get a larger scope. Naturopaths in oregon can now prescribe antibiotics. optometrists are getting surgical priviledges in some states. pharmacists want to play a role in diagnosis. CRNAs want to do pain medicine and practice completely independently in all states. Etc etc etc. It is a cluster****.

So, excuse those of us who are putting in a decade of education, for getting annoyed that less well trained individuals want to do the same thing.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[The Imprisoned]

Well I agree, it should be better regulated. What you don't seem to get is that DNPs should be getting training for the specific duties that they perform. Things they aren't trained for falls under the responsibility of the doctor

I don't doubt that some nurses are on a power trip and demand that their role be equivalent to a physician, but I have a hard time believing the majority of DNPs are like that.

But this is exactly what we are talking about. Nurses should not even contemplate themselves as doctors. They are important but IMO know your role and know your place.

 

[sylvanthus]

Well I agree, it should be better regulated. What you don't seem to get is that DNPs should be getting training for the specific duties that they perform. Things they aren't trained for falls under the responsibility of the doctor.



Well if they are given the proper training to work in a primary care position then they shouldn't overlook it.

Imo, we are in a time of transition (which you may not like, but I don't think there is any turning back). Transition=temporary confusion. In time, the responsibilites of DNPs with respect to doctors will be more clear, and it should provide easier access to healthcare and be an overall improvement.

I don't doubt that some nurses are on a power trip and demand that their role be equivalent to a physician, but I have a hard time believing the majority of DNPs are like that.

But, they are NOT getting the specific training for their increased scope. Take a good look at a DNP curriculum sometime and then get back to me.

Also, no it does NOT fall under the responsibility of the physician. What you don't understand is that DNPs are INDEPENDENT practitioners in 28+ states. Meaning, they have FULL responsibility for the patient. They are not trying to function like mid-levels, where they handle the stuff they can and turf the more difficult stuff to doctors. They are working INDEPENDENTLY with LESS training. This is the huge problem that for some reason you don't understand.

 

[druggeek]

The public doesnt know what a DO is do you really think they have a clue what all of our titles are and who does what? If a DNP walks in and says im Doctor Bob, do you think the patient is going to try and figure out what kind of doctor or assume that means physician? Or is about to get surgery from Doctor Dan who just happens to be an optometrist, not an opthalmologist. Most people are too stupid and misinformed to know the difference. The blurring of responsibilities is not helping things.

Then the public will suffer health consequences as a result. Of course the public is full of idiots, but smart people will always seek the best care (and we wonder why people of education dont live as long lol...).

I do know people who actually research doctors ahead of time (ex. pediatrician before a child is born) and if the person is from the carribean or whatever, it's an automatic no-no for them. I do support this as well. Why not seek the highest quality of care and clnical competence?

Well I agree, it should be better regulated. What you don't seem to get is that DNPs should be getting training for the specific duties that they perform. Things they aren't trained for falls under the responsibility of the doctor.



Well if they are given the proper training to work in a primary care position then they shouldn't overlook it.

Imo, we are in a time of transition (which you may not like, but I don't think there is any turning back). Transition=temporary confusion. In time, the responsibilites of DNPs with respect to doctors will be more clear, and it should provide easier access to healthcare and be an overall improvement.

I don't doubt that some nurses are on a power trip and demand that their role be equivalent to a physician, but I have a hard time believing the majority of DNPs are like that.

Doctors go through a very tough admission process designed to weed dumber people out. Nursing does not have this.
Doctors go through a very detailed and comprehensive curriculum, nurses do not.
Doctors actually learn an extremely high volume of information and learn diagnosis.
Nurses learn some info. (lol online courses) and learn some basic diagnosis techniques.
Doctors go through 10x the training clinical wise, nurses well..

and I'm talking about NPs/DNPs, not RNs.

Like if they wanted to be a doctor, then whyyyy would you not go into medical school? something tells me their sub-par high school marks in comparison to pre meds discouraged them.

 

[sylvanthus]

My mom is an independent primary care provider (and a DNP). Your concerns are understandable. However, the data I've seen show that DNPs provide primary care equivalent (in terms of outcomes) to that provided by physicians. If you can find any research that shows these independent providers with "LESS training" are causing negative health outcomes, then we'll talk. But what I've seen shows that the quality of care is the same. At first blush, it does seem like less training would necessarily lead to lots of bad diagnoses and prescriptions, adverse reactions, maybe even deaths, etc. But that's just not what we're seeing. I'm pre-med so I can empathize with all of you. But primary care doctors might have to acknowledge that their coveted knowledge of "pathophysiology" maybe isn't that important in primary care. And you have to concede that most of what a pediatrician does, for example, a DNP could do with ltitle difficulty. That's just one example.

Tell me you have actually read the articles and are not just spouting something you heard.

 

[sylvanthus]

What articles? Like we've established, DNPs can and do practice independently in some 28 states. That's a big chunk of the country. Where are the people dying from these apparently incompetent primary care providers? Please show me the research. Otherwise you're just speculating.

[YOUTUBE]mYQZSDOWwww[/YOUTUBE]

Huh, that is what I thought. You haven't read any of these "studies" and are just repeating what you have heard. Perhaps you should go back to allnurses.com Also, it is well known that nurses have a strong lobby that got them independent practice rights. That doesn't mean the care is equivalent.

 

[druggeek]

My mom is an independent primary care provider (and a DNP). Your concerns are understandable. However, the data I've seen show that DNPs provide primary care equivalent (in terms of outcomes) to that provided by physicians. If you can find any research that shows these independent providers with "LESS training" are causing negative health outcomes, then we'll talk. But what I've seen shows that the quality of care is the same. At first blush, it does seem like less training would necessarily lead to lots of bad diagnoses and prescriptions, adverse reactions, maybe even deaths, etc. But that's just not what we're seeing. I'm pre-med so I can empathize with all of you. But primary care doctors might have to acknowledge that their coveted knowledge of "pathophysiology" maybe isn't that important in primary care. And you have to concede that most of what a pediatrician does, for example, a DNP could do with ltitle difficulty. That's just one example.

Please post at least 3 pieces of legitimate studies. These studies must have zero potential bias in favour of nurses as well.

Otherwise, you're just making pre meds look bad.

 

[sliceofbread136]

But, they are NOT getting the specific training for their increased scope. Take a good look at a DNP curriculum sometime and then get back to me.

Also, no it does NOT fall under the responsibility of the physician. What you don't understand is that DNPs are INDEPENDENT practitioners in 28+ states. Meaning, they have FULL responsibility for the patient. They are not trying to function like mid-levels, where they handle the stuff they can and turf the more difficult stuff to doctors. They are working INDEPENDENTLY with LESS training. This is the huge problem that for some reason you don't understand.

Well if that is the case then it is pretty obvious that this shouldn't be happening. But I highly doubt that the stone cold truth is that they are not adequately trained, because if they weren't, wouldn't there be more DNP related deaths?

And they independently practice within their limits because that is what they were trained to do. Things that are outside their limits of training fall into the responsibility of an MD. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as they stay in their limits. If their training proves inadequate, then it should be expanded in the future or the limits of their practice should be reduced. Imo, this is a much better solution than scrapping DNP altogether.

And please don't be overly aggressive, let's try and carry this out as an exchange of ideas and try not to let it degrade to ad hominem filled rants that SDN is famous for.

 

[druggeek]

Can you procure any research that DNPs are killing off unsuspecting patients who think they're getting a "real" doctor? I myself want to go into surgery maybe, or a specialty. Of course doctors will be vital in those roles. But if primary care is (under)valued the way it is now (due to government policies on reimbursement and a host of other factors) then there will continue to be a physician shortage, and that's where DNPs come into the picture.

Is there any research to show that google doctors kill off unsuspecting patients? no? Then lets give anyone who claims to have done google research on illnesses, prescribing rights, cool?



Some stats posted on this forum showed that NPs/DNPs want to/and do practice in the same areas highly desired by real doctors. The shortage seen in the US (and same in Canada) is actually a big concern mainly for rural areas/crappier areas. Stats (posted on this forum) showed that DNPs/NPs are also avoiding these areas as much as possible when it comes down to actually practicing. Hmm I wonder why... 🙄

So what benefit is there to having these wannbes just create confusion?

 

[druggeek]

Well if that is the case then it is pretty obvious that this shouldn't be happening. But I highly doubt that the stone cold truth is that they are not adequately trained, because if they weren't, wouldn't there be more DNP related deaths?

And they independently practice within their limits because that is what they were trained to do. Things that are outside their limits of training fall into the responsibility of an MD. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as they stay in their limits. If their training proves inadequate, then it should be expanded in the future or the limits of their practice should be reduced. Imo, this is a much better solution than scrapping DNP altogether.

And please don't be overly aggressive, let's try and carry this out as an exchange of ideas and try not to let it degrade to ad hominem filled rants that SDN is famous for.

Because statistically, most coughs and sneezes are just the common cold. But basic symptoms in different areas of the body can be something more, and only someone with an indepth and high level of training could spot the small details to lead the next step in the direction of a correct diagnosis.

 

[HoltMD]

These "I wanna be a pretend doctor" threads are irritating my......

 

[Dei gratia]

In my humble opinion, this question needs to be specialized. At my home institution, to acquire a NP/MN takes nine years (4 year BSN/BN, 2 years clinical work, 3 years graduate work), while an MD takes five (2 years undergraduate, 3 years Medical School), if we consider the minimum amount of time required. On the surface an NP/MM takes longer to earn and requires more experience. An MD is also not able to practice until the completion of a residency, so based on the degrees alone an MD is not enough.

The 'DNP vs MD' argument is only valid with the right comparison. Is it DNP vs Cardiothoracic Surgeon for a transplant? Is it DNP vs GP for a yearly physical? Is it DNP vs Pediatric Oncologist for treating lymphoblastic leukemia? They're all, by defitition, MDs, and depending on the comparison the answers are going to vary. For example, a DNP is not qualified to do a heart transplant, but neither is a GP or Oncologist. Therefore, I personally wouldn't trust any random MD or DNP; I'd trust a Cardiac Surgeon or Cardiothoracic Surgeon who specialized in transplants. It's irrational to talk down to DNPs because they aren't as qualified as a specific MD, because even some MDs aren't qualified when considering a specific field. However, it could be that DNPs aren't qualified in 'any' field, but that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I personally don't see the harm in having a regulated system in place for DNPs who receive sufficient training and a specific scope of practice. That could benefit health care tremendously, but it has to be realistic. I'm still going to go to my surgeon for surgery, but I'm okay with getting a physical from a DNP who is trained to do routine check-ups..

 

[WDeagle]

In my humble opinion, this question needs to be specialized. At my home institution, to acquire a NP/MN takes nine years (4 year BSN/BN, 2 years clinical work, 3 years graduate work), while an MD takes five (2 years undergraduate, 3 years Medical School), if we consider the minimum amount of time required. On the surface an NP/MM takes longer to earn and requires more experience. An MD is also not able to practice until the completion of a residency, so based on the degrees alone an MD is not enough.

The 'DNP vs MD' argument is only valid with the right comparison. Is it DNP vs Cardiothoracic Surgeon for a transplant? Is it DNP vs GP for a yearly physical? Is it DNP vs Pediatric Oncologist for treating lymphoblastic leukemia? They're all, by defitition, MDs, and depending on the comparison the answers are going to vary. For example, a DNP is not qualified to do a heart transplant, but neither is a GP or Oncologist. Therefore, I personally wouldn't trust any random MD or DNP; I'd trust a Cardiac Surgeon or Cardiothoracic Surgeon who specialized in transplants. It's irrational to talk down to DNPs because they aren't as qualified as a specific MD, because even some MDs aren't qualified when considering a specific field. However, it could be that DNPs aren't qualified in 'any' field, but that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I personally don't see the harm in having a regulated system in place for DNPs who receive sufficient training and a specific scope of practice. That could benefit health care tremendously, but it has to be realistic. I'm still going to go to my surgeon for surgery, but I'm okay with getting a physical from a DNP who is trained to do routine check-ups..

Yes but this isn't happening. DNP's are not receiving any additional clinical training from NP's. Furthermore, the nursing board is known to do a poor job of regulating scope of practice.

 

[Dei gratia]

I respect and agree with that. It'd probably be fair to say that if a DNP is given any diagnosic lisence they should be meeting the same standards of care as an MD and some kind of board certification. However, that doesn't look like a reality at this point, but I think the potential is there if a better system was in place.

 

[druggeek]

In my humble opinion, this question needs to be specialized. At my home institution, to acquire a NP/MN takes nine years (4 year BSN/BN, 2 years clinical work, 3 years graduate work), while an MD takes five (2 years undergraduate, 3 years Medical School), if we consider the minimum amount of time required. On the surface an NP/MM takes longer to earn and requires more experience. An MD is also not able to practice until the completion of a residency, so based on the degrees alone an MD is not enough.

The 'DNP vs MD' argument is only valid with the right comparison. Is it DNP vs Cardiothoracic Surgeon for a transplant? Is it DNP vs GP for a yearly physical? Is it DNP vs Pediatric Oncologist for treating lymphoblastic leukemia? They're all, by defitition, MDs, and depending on the comparison the answers are going to vary. For example, a DNP is not qualified to do a heart transplant, but neither is a GP or Oncologist. Therefore, I personally wouldn't trust any random MD or DNP; I'd trust a Cardiac Surgeon or Cardiothoracic Surgeon who specialized in transplants. It's irrational to talk down to DNPs because they aren't as qualified as a specific MD, because even some MDs aren't qualified when considering a specific field. However, it could be that DNPs aren't qualified in 'any' field, but that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I personally don't see the harm in having a regulated system in place for DNPs who receive sufficient training and a specific scope of practice. That could benefit health care tremendously, but it has to be realistic. I'm still going to go to my surgeon for surgery, but I'm okay with getting a physical from a DNP who is trained to do routine check-ups..

Calgary correct? I think there's very few if any people who get into med school after 2 years of undergrad... the number are probably very close to 0. There are SOME 3rd years accepted but the large majority are accepted during their 4th year.
Also lets not forget that Calgary and Mac (3 year programs) are compressed programs with no summers, so you're making up for that lost 1 year by losing your summers. so in the large majority of cases, there's the equivalent of 8 years in total being done.

Next "clinical hours" are in different dimensions for nursing and an MD. Nurses do nursing, doctors diagnose and prescribe. You can have all the clinical hours you want in nursing, but it will be of minimal use when you're presented with a bunch of basic symptoms which could be 1 of 20 different illnesses.

 

[druggeek]

I respect and agree with that. It'd probably be fair to say that if a DNP is given any diagnosic lisence they should be meeting the same standards of care as an MD and some kind of board certification. However, that doesn't look like a reality at this point, but I think the potential is there if a better system was in place.

So wtf wouldnt they just go ot medical school if they wanted to play doctor?

 

[Longshanks]

In my humble opinion, this question needs to be specialized. At my home institution, to acquire a NP/MN takes nine years (4 year BSN/BN, 2 years clinical work, 3 years graduate work), while an MD takes five (2 years undergraduate, 3 years Medical School), if we consider the minimum amount of time required. On the surface an NP/MM takes longer to earn and requires more experience. An MD is also not able to practice until the completion of a residency, so based on the degrees alone an MD is not enough.

The 'DNP vs MD' argument is only valid with the right comparison. Is it DNP vs Cardiothoracic Surgeon for a transplant? Is it DNP vs GP for a yearly physical? Is it DNP vs Pediatric Oncologist for treating lymphoblastic leukemia? They're all, by defitition, MDs, and depending on the comparison the answers are going to vary. For example, a DNP is not qualified to do a heart transplant, but neither is a GP or Oncologist. Therefore, I personally wouldn't trust any random MD or DNP; I'd trust a Cardiac Surgeon or Cardiothoracic Surgeon who specialized in transplants. It's irrational to talk down to DNPs because they aren't as qualified as a specific MD, because even some MDs aren't qualified when considering a specific field. However, it could be that DNPs aren't qualified in 'any' field, but that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I personally don't see the harm in having a regulated system in place for DNPs who receive sufficient training and a specific scope of practice. That could benefit health care tremendously, but it has to be realistic. I'm still going to go to my surgeon for surgery, but I'm okay with getting a physical from a DNP who is trained to do routine check-ups..

What are you talking about? An NP isn't even close to the amount of training an MD/DO undergoes. Read some actual statistics before you spout this non-sense anecdote about your "home institution". It's already been shown, a primary care physician (FM or IM) has 20,000 hours of clinical training, throughout medical school and residency, compared to 3,000 of a DNP (700 of which are "online"). Your argument of "specialization" doesn't make sense and is fallacious. Are you trying to say you only trust transplant surgeons for your medical care? Look at any field, and the amount of training that goes in, and the curriculum of the education, and an MD/DO is more qualified than a DNP in that field. There is absolutely no way around it.

There are role for mid-level providers. One of them is not independent practice, which puts patients at risk. Yet, this is what the Nursing Lobby has been pushing for: independent practice rights. It is one thing to perform routine examinations, and to practice care under the supervision of a physician. It is another ballgame when you start discussing diagnosis, prescriptions, and independent practice, since this is not something they are trained for in nursing curriculum. Columbia University's DNP program (the "premier program" in the nation) had their students take a waterdown version of the USMLE Step 3, and 50% failed. That is enough to show that their curriculum isn't preparing them for independent practice. They have wisely used rhetoric about addressing the primary care need in this country to get their foot in the door, and now have set up "residency" programs in all sort of specialties. This is not about addressing the country's primary care needs, for them it is about expanding their scope of practice.

 

[Dei gratia]

I believe last cycle that only two 2nd year students were admitted and yes, it is a three year year-round program for the Medical School. I agree the percentage for an MD in five years is low. The comparison of 'years' between the two professions signifies that there is a lot of dedication in its applicants. In no way identical to one another, but these are educated professionals who work side by side in a hospital setting. Anyone with nine-plus years of education working in a clinical setting should know some diagnostics. Whether it's 'formal' or not, is another question, but if that exposure can be taken advantage of, refined, and used effectively it's probably worth exploring. I don't think the way it is now is near good enough; I agree that a DNP would need diagnostic clinical experience to be a true asset. However, if they only work in a small scope of practice, a year or two of clinical could be enough. I don't know what it'd look like, but it's a possibility I think.

 

[Longshanks]

I believe last cycle that only two 2nd year students were admitted and yes, it is a three year year-round program for the Medical School. I agree the percentage for an MD in five years is low. The comparison of 'years' between the two professions signifies that there is a lot of dedication in its applicants. In no way identical to one another, but these are educated professionals who work side by side in a hospital setting. Anyone with nine-plus years of education working in a clinical setting should know some diagnostics. Whether it's 'formal' or not, is another question, but if that exposure can be taken advantage of, refined, and used effectively it's probably worth exploring. I don't think the way it is now is near good enough; I agree that a DNP would need diagnostic clinical experience to be a true asset. However, if they only work in a small scope of practice, a year or two of clinical could be enough. I don't know what it'd look like, but it's a possibility I think.

Then it's "checklist medicine" and not utilizing theory and evidence in the practice of the art and science of medicine. Of course you learn and will pick up things in a clinical setting over time, but that doesn't make you a doctor that can practice independently. I don't want to bring this conversation to anecdotes, but it really is a difference in curriculum philosophy. Knowing "some diagnostics", the what and when of a clinical presentation is not the same as understanding the pathological process, the how and why.

 

[Dei gratia]

What are you talking about? An NP isn't even close to the amount of training an MD/DO undergoes. Read some actual statistics before you spout this non-sense anecdote about your "home institution". It's already been shown, a primary care physician (FM or IM) has 20,000 hours of clinical training, throughout medical school and residency, compared to 3,000 of a DNP (700 of which are "online"). Your argument of "specialization" doesn't make sense and is fallacious. Are you trying to say you only trust transplant surgeons for your medical care? Look at any field, and the amount of training that goes in, and the curriculum of the education, and an MD/DO is more qualified than a DNP in that field. There is absolutely no way around it.

There are role for mid-level providers. One of them is not independent practice, which puts patients at risk. Yet, this is what the Nursing Lobby has been pushing for: independent practice rights. It is one thing to perform routine examinations, and to practice care under the supervision of a physician. It is another ballgame when you start discussing diagnosis, prescriptions, and independent practice, since this is not something they are trained for in nursing curriculum. Columbia University's DNP program (the "premier program" in the nation) had their students take a waterdown version of the USMLE Step 3, and 50% failed. That is enough to show that their curriculum isn't preparing them for independent practice. They have wisely used rhetoric about addressing the primary care need in this country to get their foot in the door, and now have set up "residency" programs in all sort of specialties. This is not about addressing the country's primary care needs, for them it is about expanding their scope of practice.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I wasn't implying that an NP received the same training as an MD, I was stating that they do receive a lot of training. It is very much nursing education and clinical experience, but the idea was that to introduce limited diagnostic training isn't outrageous. I used my institution as an example of how much work it takes to become an NP. In no way did I say it was 'harder' but it does take longer than acquiring an MD (not including residency).
I'm sorry also, but I don't recall saying I'd only go to a surgeon for any medical care. I said I would go to a surgeon for surgery.. I listed three specialisations to demonstrate that health care is a broad field, an MD doesn't make someone qualified to practice everything. In relation to a DNP who theoretically received diagnostic training. It's fair to say that their 'practice' can be limited and specific, and still be beneficial to health care. I'm not saying it is like that today, but it could potentially be.

 

[ACE Rx]

These "I wanna be a pretend doctor" threads are irritating my......

Agreed. If you want to go to med school and be a physician, go to med school. Don't go into nursing and play pretend physician (D.N.P. or not) unless you can prove you can perform services at the same level.

 

[Dei gratia]

Deleted.

 

[iqe2010]

Another "sky is falling" thread I see. Seriously, what do you losers hope to accomplish by arguing over a stupid subject like this?

What you should be concerned about is the ever increasing cost of education and how politicians are feeding people lies about physicians.

 

[HoltMD]

What you should be concerned about is the ever increasing cost of education and how politicians are feeding people lies about physicians.

 

[CopaceticOne]

...how politicians are feeding people lies about physicians.

Care to elaborate?

 

[RNLM]

As someone who is currently in a BSN program, I would like to echo the sentiment that there is very, very little science involved in the curriculum. While I value the clinical experience and believe there to be many nurses that have excellent knowledge regarding patient care and have good experience knowing something is "wrong," such in-depth understanding of physiology is simply not encouraged nor available. There have been MANY times where I have gone to a physician or a medical textbook to get a question answered. The lack of in-depth focus in the coursework I am going through right now (and this is one of the "better" programs) makes me concerned about the safety of patients.

Despite this, I strongly believe that the competitiveness of BSN students will increase dramatically in the next decade; Soon, ADN programs will be obsolete, making many for-profit nursing schools pretty much worthless. Even my instructors at my University nursing program have admitted to us that they would probably not have gotten accepted into our school, with how much more competitive it has gotten. The combined factors of political progress in nursing and increased interest in the profession due to its perceived stability is going to result in much smarter and reliable nurses. I would put my money on that.

Now on the issue of "DNP".. I have had a bit of interest in continuing my education beyond the BSN and have had the opportunity to shadow nurse practitioners. My experience has been overall positive with NPs, but I have gotten more and more interested in the idea of learning medicine based on my own personality. I have asked both NPs and MD/DOs about continued nursing practice and interestingly enough, just about everyone I've spoken to in person thinks NP is the way to go. While many physicians think they're just darn useful, some have even hinted that it might be a smarter career path in terms of financial backing/schooling time.

When it comes to the actual training of NPs, I have heard that the majority of a NPs knowledge comes from collaboration with a physician.. and when I have followed around NPs, the majority of them are part of the physician "team," instead of independent practitioners. For instance, when one NP I know calls a pharmacy, she always makes it a point that she is calling on behalf of the physician. I don't believe that she is required to do so; she just does because that is the team dynamic she has established with the physician she is working with.

So overall, I suppose my point is that is NP a nice gig? YES. It is a great career path.. but I feel like a lot of vitriol demonstrated by those interested in pursuing medicine is driven by fear. Many do not know the exact extent of NP practice... even those who work alongside them. A lot of NPs do not desire to be as responsible as a physician (although they certainly are responsible for their own actions, just like RNs are). For those who are pushing to increase practice rights beyond what is appropriate for their educational level, well, I believe those are the few that are ruining it for the rest of them (although those few would argue otherwise). This wouldn't be the only profession where that is happening.

 

[Anonymous01]

Why are nurses so against the title of "Noctor" to help distinguish them between doctors in hospitals? It accomplishes an important task from both sides of the equation...helps alleviate the confusion between an doctor and a nurse and it provides that different title to nurses. As someone else stated, it's the same way we refer to PhDs who regularly teach as professors.

 

[druggeek]

As someone who is currently in a BSN program, I would like to echo the sentiment that there is very, very little science involved in the curriculum. While I value the clinical experience and believe there to be many nurses that have excellent knowledge regarding patient care and have good experience knowing something is "wrong," such in-depth understanding of physiology is simply not encouraged nor available. There have been MANY times where I have gone to a physician or a medical textbook to get a question answered. The lack of in-depth focus in the coursework I am going through right now (and this is one of the "better" programs) makes me concerned about the safety of patients.

Despite this, I strongly believe that the competitiveness of BSN students will increase dramatically in the next decade; Soon, ADN programs will be obsolete, making many for-profit nursing schools pretty much worthless. Even my instructors at my University nursing program have admitted to us that they would probably not have gotten accepted into our school, with how much more competitive it has gotten. The combined factors of political progress in nursing and increased interest in the profession due to its perceived stability is going to result in much smarter and reliable nurses. I would put my money on that.

Now on the issue of "DNP".. I have had a bit of interest in continuing my education beyond the BSN and have had the opportunity to shadow nurse practitioners. My experience has been overall positive with NPs, but I have gotten more and more interested in the idea of learning medicine based on my own personality. I have asked both NPs and MD/DOs about continued nursing practice and interestingly enough, just about everyone I've spoken to in person thinks NP is the way to go. While many physicians think they're just darn useful, some have even hinted that it might be a smarter career path in terms of financial backing/schooling time.

When it comes to the actual training of NPs, I have heard that the majority of a NPs knowledge comes from collaboration with a physician.. and when I have followed around NPs, the majority of them are part of the physician "team," instead of independent practitioners. For instance, when one NP I know calls a pharmacy, she always makes it a point that she is calling on behalf of the physician. I don't believe that she is required to do so; she just does because that is the team dynamic she has established with the physician she is working with.

So overall, I suppose my point is that is NP a nice gig? YES. It is a great career path.. but I feel like a lot of vitriol demonstrated by those interested in pursuing medicine is driven by fear. Many do not know the exact extent of NP practice... even those who work alongside them. A lot of NPs do not desire to be as responsible as a physician (although they certainly are responsible for their own actions, just like RNs are). For those who are pushing to increase practice rights beyond what is appropriate for their educational level, well, I believe those are the few that are ruining it for the rest of them (although those few would argue otherwise). This wouldn't be the only profession where that is happening.

Quick point about SOME nurses who are in practice right now (not talking about nurses who went to school here) but many international nurses have a very low level of clinical competence, yet are licensed to practice.

Prior to 2005 in Canada, the RN and RPN nursing registration exams were watered-down versions of the current licensing exam. As well twice the number of attempts was allowed (6 attempts) to achieve a 65%. My mom is an RN and she mentioned at a party, where 7-8 different nurses were there and they all had passed prior to 2005... they all talked about how "they would work in some clinic where you dont have to know much" or "follow what another nurse does" or "read off a book and repeat word for word what the book says to a patient" and a whole bunch of things along those lines.

Standards got higher after 2005, but that doesnt change the fact that theres clinically incompetent nurses practicing.

 

[theseeker4]

Quick point about SOME nurses who are in practice right now (not talking about nurses who went to school here) but many international nurses have a very low level of clinical competence, yet are licensed to practice.

Prior to 2005 in Canada, the RN and RPN nursing registration exams were watered-down versions of the current licensing exam. As well twice the number of attempts was allowed (6 attempts) to achieve a 65%. My mom is an RN and she mentioned at a party, where 7-8 different nurses were there and they all had passed prior to 2005... they all talked about how "they would work in some clinic where you dont have to know much" or "follow what another nurse does" or "read off a book and repeat word for word what the book says to a patient" and a whole bunch of things along those lines.

Standards got higher after 2005, but that doesnt change the fact that theres clinically incompetent nurses practicing.

Interesting, so are these nurses who took the pre-2005 exam "grandfathered" in, or will they need to renew their licensing by taking the new exam at some point in the future?

 

[druggeek]

Interesting, so are these nurses who took the pre-2005 exam "grandfathered" in, or will they need to renew their licensing by taking the new exam at some point in the future?

They are grandfathered in and do not require any further testing. The requirements for being eligible to take the exam prior to 2005 were also easier.

 

[shea12358]

Yes, the DNP should be able to use the doctor title in themedical setting. The nurse that wants to get their DNP must go to school for 2 yearsof college to complete basic nursing prerequisites before being able to applyto a generic nursing program. After being accepted that person must thencomplete another 2 years to get their RN. After that, another 2 years of education to get nursepractioner. And yet, after that another 2 years to achieve DNP. Guess what,that’s 8 years + or – 1 depending upon your entry level and the school youselect.

To all those MD out there, and to those who don’t knowbetter, there are plenty of ways to get your MD in 6 years. A lot of MDs completedtheir degree in just 6 years outside of the United States. After they finish schoolthey come to the United States to sit for USMLE3 andbecome licensed physicians.

And guess what “Graduates of foreign medical schools now make up a quarterof all the practicing doctors” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03doctors.html)
So that means in as many as 25% of MDs, a nurse practioner who isa DNP could have more education than a medical doctor by 2 years.

Oh and another thing, medical doctors are highly specialized afterresidency.
So, for the ophthalmologist and psychiatrist who cares. Compare thepsychiatrist of 10 years to the family nurse practioner of 10 years and see whoknows more about treating medical conditions.

Also, some medical doctors would use the argument that medicalschool is a much more rigorous education process than nurse practioner school.However, they omit what is required to become a nurse practioner. You must be aregistered nurse with a BSN. Which takes4 years, a lot like the unnecessary 2-4 years of prerequisites beforebeing able to apply to medical school (in the united states). In some foreignmedical schools it is possible to go into medical school straight out of highschool, and then practice in the united states.

Something else I would like to say is, you can’t claim you own aword (doctor) and it can be earned by several fields. Those who have earned thetitle, are entitled to the title.

DNPs are doctors of nursing, and they do a damn good job at it.
In many cases, better than a medical doctor who may have just wentto school 6 years, straight of high school. The real issue here is not thedoctor title, nor is it the patients confusion, it is pride and money. MDs andDOs just don’t want competition.

 

[Finches]

Yes, the DNP should be able to use the doctor title in themedical setting. The nurse that wants to get their DNP must go to school for 2 yearsof college to complete basic nursing prerequisites before being able to applyto a generic nursing program. After being accepted that person must thencomplete another 2 years to get their RN. After that, another 2 years of education to get nursepractioner. And yet, after that another 2 years to achieve DNP. Guess what,that’s 8 years + or – 1 depending upon your entry level and the school youselect.

To all those MD out there, and to those who don’t knowbetter, there are plenty of ways to get your MD in 6 years. A lot of MDs completedtheir degree in just 6 years outside of the United States. After they finish schoolthey come to the United States to sit for USMLE3 andbecome licensed physicians.

And guess what “Graduates of foreign medical schools now make up a quarterof all the practicing doctors” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03doctors.html)
So that means in as many as 25% of MDs, a nurse practioner who isa DNP could have more education than a medical doctor by 2 years.

Oh and another thing, medical doctors are highly specialized afterresidency.
So, for the ophthalmologist and psychiatrist who cares. Compare thepsychiatrist of 10 years to the family nurse practioner of 10 years and see whoknows more about treating medical conditions.

Also, some medical doctors would use the argument that medicalschool is a much more rigorous education process than nurse practioner school.However, they omit what is required to become a nurse practioner. You must be aregistered nurse with a BSN. Which takes4 years, a lot like the unnecessary 2-4 years of prerequisites beforebeing able to apply to medical school (in the united states). In some foreignmedical schools it is possible to go into medical school straight out of highschool, and then practice in the united states.

Something else I would like to say is, you can’t claim you own aword (doctor) and it can be earned by several fields. Those who have earned thetitle, are entitled to the title.

DNPs are doctors of nursing, and they do a damn good job at it.
In many cases, better than a medical doctor who may have just wentto school 6 years, straight of high school. The real issue here is not thedoctor title, nor is it the patients confusion, it is pride and money. MDs andDOs just don’t want competition.

Oh god, shut up.

 

[phltz]

Yes, the DNP should be able to use the doctor title in themedical setting. The nurse that wants to get their DNP must go to school for 2 yearsof college to complete basic nursing prerequisites before being able to applyto a generic nursing program. After being accepted that person must thencomplete another 2 years to get their RN. After that, another 2 years of education to get nursepractioner. And yet, after that another 2 years to achieve DNP. Guess what,that’s 8 years + or – 1 depending upon your entry level and the school youselect.

To all those MD out there, and to those who don’t knowbetter, there are plenty of ways to get your MD in 6 years. A lot of MDs completedtheir degree in just 6 years outside of the United States. After they finish schoolthey come to the United States to sit for USMLE3 andbecome licensed physicians.

And guess what “Graduates of foreign medical schools now make up a quarterof all the practicing doctors” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03doctors.html)
So that means in as many as 25% of MDs, a nurse practioner who isa DNP could have more education than a medical doctor by 2 years.

Oh and another thing, medical doctors are highly specialized afterresidency.
So, for the ophthalmologist and psychiatrist who cares. Compare thepsychiatrist of 10 years to the family nurse practioner of 10 years and see whoknows more about treating medical conditions.

Also, some medical doctors would use the argument that medicalschool is a much more rigorous education process than nurse practioner school.However, they omit what is required to become a nurse practioner. You must be aregistered nurse with a BSN. Which takes4 years, a lot like the unnecessary 2-4 years of prerequisites beforebeing able to apply to medical school (in the united states). In some foreignmedical schools it is possible to go into medical school straight out of highschool, and then practice in the united states.

Something else I would like to say is, you can’t claim you own aword (doctor) and it can be earned by several fields. Those who have earned thetitle, are entitled to the title.

DNPs are doctors of nursing, and they do a damn good job at it.
In many cases, better than a medical doctor who may have just wentto school 6 years, straight of high school. The real issue here is not thedoctor title, nor is it the patients confusion, it is pride and money. MDs andDOs just don’t want competition.

I'd like to offer you one piece of advice. When you're defending your education, it helps to write with a bit of care. People will judge you on poor argument structure, grammar, and typing skills. The font changes make it look even more amateur. If you want people to take you seriously as a professional, you'll get much further if you write like one.

 

[music2doc]

Yes, the DNP should be able to use the doctor title in themedical setting. The nurse that wants to get their DNP must go to school for 2 yearsof college to complete basic nursing prerequisites before being able to applyto a generic nursing program. After being accepted that person must thencomplete another 2 years to get their RN. After that, another 2 years of education to get nursepractioner. And yet, after that another 2 years to achieve DNP. Guess what,that’s 8 years + or – 1 depending upon your entry level and the school youselect.

To all those MD out there, and to those who don’t knowbetter, there are plenty of ways to get your MD in 6 years. A lot of MDs completedtheir degree in just 6 years outside of the United States. After they finish schoolthey come to the United States to sit for USMLE3 andbecome licensed physicians.

And guess what “Graduates of foreign medical schools now make up a quarterof all the practicing doctors” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03doctors.html)
So that means in as many as 25% of MDs, a nurse practioner who isa DNP could have more education than a medical doctor by 2 years.

Oh and another thing, medical doctors are highly specialized afterresidency.
So, for the ophthalmologist and psychiatrist who cares. Compare thepsychiatrist of 10 years to the family nurse practioner of 10 years and see whoknows more about treating medical conditions.

Also, some medical doctors would use the argument that medicalschool is a much more rigorous education process than nurse practioner school.However, they omit what is required to become a nurse practioner. You must be aregistered nurse with a BSN. Which takes4 years, a lot like the unnecessary 2-4 years of prerequisites beforebeing able to apply to medical school (in the united states). In some foreignmedical schools it is possible to go into medical school straight out of highschool, and then practice in the united states.

Something else I would like to say is, you can’t claim you own aword (doctor) and it can be earned by several fields. Those who have earned thetitle, are entitled to the title.

DNPs are doctors of nursing, and they do a damn good job at it.
In many cases, better than a medical doctor who may have just wentto school 6 years, straight of high school. The real issue here is not thedoctor title, nor is it the patients confusion, it is pride and money. MDs andDOs just don’t want competition.

New Poll -- everyone vote!

Is this person:


A) A Troll
B) ******ed
C) Ignorant
D) Options B and C
E) All of the Above

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

Yes, the DNP should be able to use the doctor title in themedical setting. The nurse that wants to get their DNP must go to school for 2 yearsof college to complete basic nursing prerequisites before being able to applyto a generic nursing program. After being accepted that person must thencomplete another 2 years to get their RN. After that, another 2 years of education to get nursepractioner. And yet, after that another 2 years to achieve DNP. Guess what,that’s 8 years + or – 1 depending upon your entry level and the school youselect.

To all those MD out there, and to those who don’t knowbetter, there are plenty of ways to get your MD in 6 years. A lot of MDs completedtheir degree in just 6 years outside of the United States. After they finish schoolthey come to the United States to sit for USMLE3 andbecome licensed physicians.

And guess what “Graduates of foreign medical schools now make up a quarterof all the practicing doctors” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03doctors.html)
So that means in as many as 25% of MDs, a nurse practioner who isa DNP could have more education than a medical doctor by 2 years.

Oh and another thing, medical doctors are highly specialized afterresidency.
So, for the ophthalmologist and psychiatrist who cares. Compare thepsychiatrist of 10 years to the family nurse practioner of 10 years and see whoknows more about treating medical conditions.

Also, some medical doctors would use the argument that medicalschool is a much more rigorous education process than nurse practioner school.However, they omit what is required to become a nurse practioner. You must be aregistered nurse with a BSN. Which takes4 years, a lot like the unnecessary 2-4 years of prerequisites beforebeing able to apply to medical school (in the united states). In some foreignmedical schools it is possible to go into medical school straight out of highschool, and then practice in the united states.

Something else I would like to say is, you can’t claim you own aword (doctor) and it can be earned by several fields. Those who have earned thetitle, are entitled to the title.

DNPs are doctors of nursing, and they do a damn good job at it.
In many cases, better than a medical doctor who may have just wentto school 6 years, straight of high school. The real issue here is not thedoctor title, nor is it the patients confusion, it is pride and money. MDs andDOs just don’t want competition.

This is some of the wierdest/worst logic for an argument I have ever seen.

 

[gatorade848]

1.
2. :troll:

 

[Thego2guy]

This is some of the wierdest/worst logicfor an argument I have ever seen.

Lmao, that made me giggle 🙂

 

[Morsetlis]

This thread...

 

[DrMediterranean]

new poll -- everyone vote!

Is this person:


A) a troll
b) ******ed
c) ignorant
d) options b and c
e) all of the above

b

 

[Wisco1]

Might I suggest a modification of Option b to "cognitively impaired?"

 

[Unzbuzzled]

No nurse will ever beat this guy: http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~jadvar/ He's even got two other Master's degrees he doesn't list behind his name...

Challenge accepted. http://www.som.uq.edu.au/staff/staf...head-of-school/professor-david-wilkinson.aspx

 

[Katman2]

As I see it from my experience working in an Orthopedic unit, CNA's are the eyes and ears for RN's, RN's are the eyes and ears for the NP's and surgeons, and NP's and DNP's are the eyes and ears for the surgeons, who spend the majority of their time in surgery. In reality, MD's spend 5-10 minutes rounding on each patient and NP's typically spend 10-20 minutes per day rounding on each patient. RN's spend on average 2-3 hours per day with each patient based upon their patient load. Surgeons don't have the time to spend hours per day with each patient; therefore, they don't always catch missing orders, order errors, and critical changes in patient status. RN's, NP's and DNP's are often the ones who are able to spend more time assessing patients in order to catch negative developments such as MI's, strokes, and septicemia as they are developing in order to quickly inform the doctors of these developments. The more knowledge and training every member of the medical team acquires, the better patient outcomes will be. More training for nurses = better patient outcomes.

 

[RnMd007]

I am currently a nursing student with about 1.5 years left for my BSN. The prerequisites I had to complete were helpful to nursing and a bit different than the med school prereqs I have seen. I was required to take one semester of each of the following: gen chem, gen bio, statistics, nutrition, microbiology, anatomy, and physiology among other core requirements for a bachelor's degree. Now I am learning pathologies and their affects on normal physiology and associating clinical tests and treatments with each pathology. As a BSN RN, I will not pretend to have the same knowledge as the doctor. Our jobs are different, I will spend more time with the patient and will communicate my own and the patient's concerns to the doctor and discuss the plan of care for the patient.

As far as a physician saying I don't have enough background or experience to one day provide care as a primary care provider.... well, I say that is ridiculous. By the time I graduate, I will have the same educational background as any incoming med student because I will have completed gen chem2, organic chem, biochem, genetics, calculus, physics, and all associated labs. Most physicians, nurses, etc will not be aware that I have this background in addition to my RN requirements. After a few years I plan to continue to either a DNP or MD. In my honest opinion, I would make one hell of an MD. I hope to weave the best practices from my experiences to provide the best care I possibly can. DNP and nurse practitioner programs are different than the entry level ADN/BSN RN. These education programs teach their students to diagnose and perform as a primary care provider.

In closing, whether I earn my DNP or MD, do not insult my education. I have much of the same background in the sciences and I will have earned my Doctorate degree. Btw, I'm planning for MD due to the very limited function of DNPs in the specialty of interest.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

I am currently a nursing student with about 1.5 years left for my BSN. The prerequisites I had to complete were helpful to nursing and a bit different than the med school prereqs I have seen. I was required to take one semester of each of the following: gen chem, gen bio, statistics, nutrition, microbiology, anatomy, and physiology among other core requirements for a bachelor's degree. Now I am learning pathologies and their affects on normal physiology and associating clinical tests and treatments with each pathology. As a BSN RN, I will not pretend to have the same knowledge as the doctor. Our jobs are different, I will spend more time with the patient and will communicate my own and the patient's concerns to the doctor and discuss the plan of care for the patient.

As far as a physician saying I don't have enough background or experience to one day provide care as a primary care provider.... well, I say that is ridiculous. By the time I graduate, I will have the same educational background as any incoming med student because I will have completed gen chem2, organic chem, biochem, genetics, calculus, physics, and all associated labs. Most physicians, nurses, etc will not be aware that I have this background in addition to my RN requirements. After a few years I plan to continue to either a DNP or MD. In my honest opinion, I would make one hell of an MD. I hope to weave the best practices from my experiences to provide the best care I possibly can. DNP and nurse practitioner programs are different than the entry level ADN/BSN RN. These education programs teach their students to diagnose and perform as a primary care provider.

In closing, whether I earn my DNP or MD, do not insult my education. I have much of the same background in the sciences and I will have earned my Doctorate degree. Btw, I'm planning for MD due to the very limited function of DNPs in the specialty of interest.

I have no idea how this backs up your initial claim.😕 It's not the lack of UG pre-med classes that differentiates physicians from nurses. It's the whole medical school and residency thing.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

I am currently a nursing student with about 1.5 years left for my BSN. The prerequisites I had to complete were helpful to nursing and a bit different than the med school prereqs I have seen. I was required to take one semester of each of the following: gen chem, gen bio, statistics, nutrition, microbiology, anatomy, and physiology among other core requirements for a bachelor's degree. Now I am learning pathologies and their affects on normal physiology and associating clinical tests and treatments with each pathology. As a BSN RN, I will not pretend to have the same knowledge as the doctor. Our jobs are different, I will spend more time with the patient and will communicate my own and the patient's concerns to the doctor and discuss the plan of care for the patient.

As far as a physician saying I don't have enough background or experience to one day provide care as a primary care provider.... well, I say that is ridiculous. By the time I graduate, I will have the same educational background as any incoming med student because I will have completed gen chem2, organic chem, biochem, genetics, calculus, physics, and all associated labs. Most physicians, nurses, etc will not be aware that I have this background in addition to my RN requirements. After a few years I plan to continue to either a DNP or MD. In my honest opinion, I would make one hell of an MD. I hope to weave the best practices from my experiences to provide the best care I possibly can. DNP and nurse practitioner programs are different than the entry level ADN/BSN RN. These education programs teach their students to diagnose and perform as a primary care provider.

In closing, whether I earn my DNP or MD, do not insult my education. I have much of the same background in the sciences and I will have earned my Doctorate degree. Btw, I'm planning for MD due to the very limited function of DNPs in the specialty of interest.

You're right... In the sense that when you graduate with an NP degree you will have similar knowledge as an INCOMING medical student. But medical students don't provide independent care to patients. So your argument about NPs being qualified for independent practice because of the same qualifications is faulty.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is insulting a nurse or a nurse practitioners education. Most doctors and med students are simply telling them to remember their place in the health care profession. They have different roles than physicians so I don't see why they are trying to encroach on the duties of a physician.

 

[Apache1618]

I am currently a nursing student with about 1.5 years left for my BSN. The prerequisites I had to complete were helpful to nursing and a bit different than the med school prereqs I have seen. I was required to take one semester of each of the following: gen chem, gen bio, statistics, nutrition, microbiology, anatomy, and physiology among other core requirements for a bachelor's degree. Now I am learning pathologies and their affects on normal physiology and associating clinical tests and treatments with each pathology. As a BSN RN, I will not pretend to have the same knowledge as the doctor. Our jobs are different, I will spend more time with the patient and will communicate my own and the patient's concerns to the doctor and discuss the plan of care for the patient.

As far as a physician saying I don't have enough background or experience to one day provide care as a primary care provider.... well, I say that is ridiculous. By the time I graduate, I will have the same educational background as any incoming med student because I will have completed gen chem2, organic chem, biochem, genetics, calculus, physics, and all associated labs. Most physicians, nurses, etc will not be aware that I have this background in addition to my RN requirements. After a few years I plan to continue to either a DNP or MD. In my honest opinion, I would make one hell of an MD. I hope to weave the best practices from my experiences to provide the best care I possibly can. DNP and nurse practitioner programs are different than the entry level ADN/BSN RN. These education programs teach their students to diagnose and perform as a primary care provider.

In closing, whether I earn my DNP or MD, do not insult my education. I have much of the same background in the sciences and I will have earned my Doctorate degree. Btw, I'm planning for MD due to the very limited function of DNPs in the specialty of interest.

O chem, biochem, genetics, calculus, and physics? Unless I am missing something this is not a typical courseload for most nursing students. If you individually took those courses to prep for med school that is great and it will help you no doubt in your career as a nurse. In all reality though this thread was dead back in 2012 and you just bumped it. If only there was a way to bury it before people start going medieval in here again...

 

[Alex Popa]

Frankly, I think the majority of you are self-glorified arseholes. My plan is to finish with DNP, which for the record will be a practicing diagnostic doctorate, and not a theoretical Ph.D. The success or capability of a DNP or MD is not a matter of program, hours, or clinical path alone. A lot of it has to do with an individual's intelligence and innate analytical ability. There are plenty of stupid MDs in America. Being a book worm, or able to study like no-one's bussiness does not somehow make you a God. I did 2 years of Bio, 2 years of Chem, 1 of Physics, finished Pre-Calculus, and had a near perfect SAT score in HIGH SCHOOL. Need I go into details of where I started college with my multiple AP courses? I also did my boyfriend's Med. School applications, which according to several interviews was his saving grace. He is now finishing his 3rd year, thanks, in part, to me. So why DNP and not MD? Because being an MD is not only considered one of the most stressful career choices, but because I will walk pretty in my Louboutin heels as an R.N. without the $250k in debt. And when my hospital pays for the post-graduate degrees, it sure makes it easy to save up and open my own clinic. Am I going to be a surgeon? No, but I don't need to cut anyone open. Am I going to make just as much money with a wellness and dermatology center? Oh you bet your dimes I will. A smart "doctor" doesn't need to waste half of their life paying for a white coat. Lets be honest, 90% of patients do not care what your title is as long as you are capable of performing the job.