Leveling the playing field

[deleted6669]

I went to the umass dnp program website http://www.umass.edu/nursing/programs/pro_grad_DNP/DNP_Flyer.pdf , 79-81 credits post BS (those with AD needed BS in another field) I didnt find the 4 year part time option for 79-81 credits. Wouldn't 79 credits over 4 years be about 20 credits per year, isnt full time graduate school usually 8-9 credits per semester?

no full time grad school is 15-20 units/semester(at least pa school is).
80 units over 4 years is 5 units/quarter. that's 1 class/quarter. I just completed an easy 1 yr graduate level cme course which was 4 units/quarter while working 200 hrs/month.
here is a typical ms level pa program . 61 credits yr 1, 56 credits yr 2.(yes I know semester and quarter units are different but not much...)
http://www.drexel.edu/cnhp/physician_assistant/masters_curriculum.asp
from the umass website:
"if a student is interested in taking two or more
courses per semester it is recommended that the
student does not work full time."
to me that would indicate they could take 2-3 courses at a time and still work part time, say 20-30 hrs/week.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[The right Path]

What's a class on research? I've been doing research for 1.5yrs but I have no clue what you mean by a "class" on research. I can assure you that I understand experimental design at a reasonable enough level to see how flawed the current studies are. Heck, I'd even go as far as saying that even someone with no statistics background could see how flawed the often cited (by midlevels) studies are.

It's up to the investigators to provide a study where the science isn't lacking, not to put out badly designed studies and hope someone else has to waste their funds on rectifying the mistakes of the study.

As an aside, I essentially said the same thing as JeffLebowski regarding the burden of proof. I'm a little confused how you agreed with him and then disagreed with me.

The agreement was in response to both of you. Did I need to write it twice? What I had written below your quote was all about finding out what your follow through is in addressing research flaws. Looking back I don't see where I'm disagreeing with you and agreeing with Jeff Lebowski- there is one statement that is a challenge, not a disagreement, and two questions.

And since you ask- A class in research covers among other things: various types of research (experimental v. nonexperimental, qualitiative v. quantitative), sampling, data collection, reliability, validity, analysis and critique. It was required for my undergrad degree.

I'm not doubting your capability to find weaknesses in design, sampling, conclusion, etc. It doesn't take a formal education to use logic, and furthermore limitations (which are particularly inherent in self-sampling, self-reporting types of research, etc.) are (ususally) spelled right out in the publication. My suggestion to you, since it is such an important issue to you, is to take up your concerns with the folks conducting midlevel outcomes research directly. My suggestion for taking a research class is that it would familiarize you with methodologies that plausibly you're not familiar with and you may be better prepared to suggest improvements. However, if your 1.5 years in research has made you such an expert that formal study would not be neccessary, then just jump right in.

I agree that badly designed research doesn't accomplish much. There is a reason that research flaws and limitations are published and discussed. It provides direction for improving the quality of the next study either conducted by the same investigators or others. Rather than "wasting funds on rectifying mistakes", it is furthering and bettering research. (That's not to say that I don't believe there are studies published that are a waste of funds- I'm just illustrating the process).

My whole interest in this particular exchange with you is to see what you are trying to accomplish. If you are really trying to contribute to legitimate midlevel outcomes reporting I would think that you would address your concerns at the root. At the most dedicated level that would involve launching your own study. At the simplest level, that would be corresponding with investigators of the studies you have read or investigators that are currently or planning to conduct research on this topic.

 

[prairiedog]

no full time grad school is 15-20 units/semester(at least pa school is).
80 units over 4 years is 5 units/quarter. that's 1 class/quarter. I just completed an easy 1 yr graduate level cme course which was 4 units/quarter while working 200 hrs/month.
here is a typical ms level pa program . 61 credits yr 1, 56 credits yr 2.(yes I know semester and quarter units are different but not much...)
http://www.drexel.edu/cnhp/physician_assistant/masters_curriculum.asp
from the umass website:
"if a student is interested in taking two or more
courses per semester it is recommended that the
student does not work full time."
to me that would indicate they could take 2-3 courses at a time and still work part time, say 20-30 hrs/week.

Guess most of the gradaute programs I have reviewed dont use units, they use semester credits. I really wasn't looking to compare to PA, rather graduate schools (which may have PA programs). I thought it was standard.

In looking at Duke, Full-time master’s candidates must register for 9 course units per semester http://gradschool.duke.edu/gsa/publications/student_handbook/academics.pdf
But they do refer to semester credits as units.

 

[zenman]

What's a class on research? I've been doing research for 1.5yrs but I have no clue what you mean by a "class" on research.

Unlike med school where most research education probably occurs via OJT, other programs have formal research and stat classes. I had several during my MSN program and if you look at a nursing Ph.D. programs for example, you'll see lot's of stats and research formal classes.

 

[zenman]

zenman, why don't assess these studies for yourself then? Surely you can't miss some of those huge flaws in design. Put out a well-designed study and the other side won't be able to show that it's wrong. However, when you put out badly designed studies and make inferences off of them, of course you're going to face some harsh criticism. It's that simple.

Don't care to as I believe most research out there done by humans on humans is flawed. Trying to figure out how to do a legit study comparing care done by NPs and MDs would give me a headache.

 

[AegriSomnia]

Unlike med school where most research education probably occurs via OJT, other programs have formal research and stat classes. I had several during my MSN program and if you look at a nursing Ph.D. programs for example, you'll see lot's of stats and research formal classes.

Now, don't take this the wrong way. A PhD in nursing is a joke. If you want to do real research get it in chem, bio, phys, or some hard science. I don't know one PhD that takes a nursing PhD seriously, except the "doctor nurses" themselves. What are you going to do research on with PhD in nursing? The outcome of improper insertion of rectal trumpets? This degree is for people with easy degrees to make them feel important. It disgusts me that someone will get a PhD in this nonsense when I am killing myself getting one in bioengineering.

 

[oceangirl]

In response to the above--while my view on Nursing at a DNP level likely mirrors yours I would point out that nursing theorists from Florence Nightingale on down have made amazing contributions to research.
From the pain management level to interaction between patient and nurse these nurse scholars are well read and well funded.

Please you should not minimize their work as silly. I would suggest that you take a little bit of time and examine that contribution before you wonder why your degree in engineering is so much more important than the work that they have done.

 

[zenman]

Now, don't take this the wrong way. A PhD in nursing is a joke. If you want to do real research get it in chem, bio, phys, or some hard science. I don't know one PhD that takes a nursing PhD seriously, except the "doctor nurses" themselves. What are you going to do research on with PhD in nursing? The outcome of improper insertion of rectal trumpets? This degree is for people with easy degrees to make them feel important. It disgusts me that someone will get a PhD in this nonsense when I am killing myself getting one in bioengineering.

The only way I can take this is that it's one of the most dufus things I've ever heard and certainly speaks volumes about the failings of your educational process. That fact that you don't know one Ph.D. that takes a nursing Ph.D. seriously is another nail in your stupidity file. Just for the record, Rush University, which I attend, currently has 8 NIH funded research projects going on among faculty. Your rationale sounds like some of my old Army Ranger buddies arguing with Navy Seals over who had to suffer the most in training.

 

[deleted87716]

It just may be that I'm staying up wayyyy too late, but I'm not getting what you mean by this.

Ask Paseo Del Norte. He gets it.

I would also like to see nursing put additional focus back to the bedside and on safety practices that benefit provider and patient. This is a primary function of nursing IMHO, one that has been neglected in the push for the holy grail of indi practice.

 

[The right Path]

Now, don't take this the wrong way. A PhD in nursing is a joke. If you want to do real research get it in chem, bio, phys, or some hard science. I don't know one PhD that takes a nursing PhD seriously, except the "doctor nurses" themselves. What are you going to do research on with PhD in nursing? The outcome of improper insertion of rectal trumpets? This degree is for people with easy degrees to make them feel important. It disgusts me that someone will get a PhD in this nonsense when I am killing myself getting one in bioengineering.

What is your depth of experience of nursing research to draw such a conclusion? Of course I've read studies which have made my eyes roll out of my head. That doesn't mean that nursing research is nonsense. It's a completely different animal than the research you're used to. Your research involves more clearly defined variables, treatments that are much easier to standardize and outcomes that are soooo much easier to measure quantitatively. In nursing and medicine- anytime you are studying whole humans for that matter, it is soooo much more difficult to randomize, and there are soooo many more confounding variables in subjects. I think that another aspect which turns people off of nursing research is the heavy focus on psychosocial variables and outcomes. (I can tell you it ain't my favorite thing.) The research approach and measurement of that is an incredibly complex can of worms. But to deny that is is relevent and important is to reduce treating and taking care of humans to wonking on a car. That's my schpiel (sp?). If nursing research ain't your cup of tea- cool, it doesn't rev my engine either. But I will say that I follow nursing research in topics that are of interest to me and relevent to my practice- and it influences the way we treat out patients- from purely biophysiological standpoints as well as the ever slippery psychosocial aspects. The end result is that people are given care that is more effective. If you think that is a joke or unimportant, then you just don't "get" healthcare.

Ask Paseo Del Norte. He gets it.

Okay, gottcha. From my personal experience with nursing academia, it was all about safety practices and bedside nursing, and well, in my program, community health as well (I could have gotten my cert as a PHN, but wasn't about to throw down $80 for what I don't think I'll ever use). That was for a bachelor's degree, so while the faculty comprised of nurses with PhDs, and MSNs, and CNMs, etc., there was never an agenda that emphasized advanced practice whatever.

Now, 6 years beyond nursing school, my experience with nursing academia is in the form of publications that I receive from professional organizations that I belong to. Sigma Theta Tau (nursing honor's society) puts out the Journal of Nursing Scholarship. Admittedly I don't read much of this publication. Heavy, heavy focus on psychosocial, international, community health nursing issues. Really not my thing. So why am I a member? I like the philanthropic, community outreach, scholarship fundraising stuff my chapter does, and the organization as a whole does. The organization does encourage and support furthering nursing education and research, which of course includes advance practice nursing, but that is certainly not to say that patient safety or bedside issues are not emphasized. I grabbed a random Journal of Nursing Scholarship- Voume 41, No. 3 (2009) from the very bottom of my stack of **** to read and the feature articles are: Family Presence During Resuscitation: Canadian Critical Care Nurse's Perspectives, Postoperative Pain Assessment With Three Intensity Scales in Chinese Elders, and Reliability of Vision Screening Tests for School Children. Those were the first 3. See what I mean about heavy psychosocial focus?- Not going to read that anytime soon, unless I'm having a hard time falling asleep. Lolz, don't mean any disrespect. I'm not saying at all that that isn't worthwhile or important, but that's just indicative of my preference (or lack thereof).

I'm also a member of AACN (American Association of Critical Care Nurses). Their publications are more up my alley. They do have a publication specifically for advance practice nurses, but I only subscribe to the American Journal of Critical Care and Critical Care Nurse (those are the two that have the widest readership by the way). These publications do incorporate psychosocial issues that are relevent to critical care populations, but there is heavy focus on biophysiologic monitoring, pharmacology, best practices, etc. Here's a sample from May 2009 Volume 18, No. 3: Precision-to-Tolerance Capability in Tight Glucose Control, ICP and ABP Variability in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, and Nurse's Perceptions of End-of-Life Care. Here is a list of Top 10 concerns (as identified by the AACN) published in their "call for papers" (invitation for submission for peer review and publication): DVT, end of life/palliative care, family centered care, including family presence and open visitation, health care associated infections, healthy work environments, multidrug resistant oraganisms, pain and sedation management, patient safety, progressive mobility, wound care and pressure ulcer prevention.

That's my lengthy response to why I believe that nursing academia's attention and investment in patient safety and bedside care is alive and well. I don't think you see the whole picture of what are hot nursing issues, because well, you're not a nurse. Naturally your radar is going to blip on nursing issues that are relevent to you, namely advance practice RN scope of practice, training, salaries, etc. Not to mention the fact that it is oh so controversial.

So that's why I scratch my head a 'lil when you state that nursing academia has no love for the acute care bedside issues and is all about advancing the advanced practitioners. Within nursing academia of course there are individuals with their special pet projects, and it stands to reason that those that champion ideas you oppose would particularly blip on your radar.

Sarah Palin comes to mind, for some reason as a metaphor for this situation. Lots of media coverage, highly controversial. But in the real political world is such a small town player, an inconsequential figure despite her press attention.

 

[AegriSomnia]

My point is that there is no reason to have RNs do research at all. There are other better prepared disciplines that are already doing research that RNs are capable of doing. If you want to do research as a RN get a MPH or a real PhD. The RNs are really just trying to take over everything. As an RN you simply don't have the scientific background to do anything meaningful, thats all.

 

[AegriSomnia]

Yeah, that statement was the pinnacle of stupidity. Why, then, are there RNs in doctoral programs with subpar undergrad GPAs and GRE scores below 1000? I would have had my PhD app sent back to me covered in the tears from when the department chair read it and died laughing. There are RNs out there with real PhDs so why don't you ask some of them? They may not say it as harshly, but I'm sure they would agree that a nursing PhD pales in comparison to one from one of the hard sciences. If you want to be taken seriously by everyone else you have to police these programs as a profession. You will be viewed by the rest of the medical and scientific community from the company of your peers. These programs are seriously flawed as it now stands.

 

[The right Path]

My point is that there is no reason to have RNs do research at all. There are other better prepared disciplines that are already doing research that RNs are capable of doing. If you want to do research as a RN get a MPH or a real PhD. The RNs are really just trying to take over everything. As an RN you simply don't have the scientific background to do anything meaningful, thats all.

Hello? RNs conduct research on issues related to nursing? To improve nursing practice? These are rhetorical questions by the way. "The RNs are really just trying to take over everything." Do you realize you sound like you belong in a cult?

And how the hell would someone with a PhD in engineering be qualified to conduct research on nursing issues? Let me ask Uncle "Buck" about that one, or even someone with a somewhat more relevent degree such as a PhD in psychology, I'll have to ask my sister about that one. It will be worth a good laugh.

Yeah, that statement was the pinnacle of stupidity. Why, then, are there RNs in doctoral programs with subpar undergrad GPAs and GRE scores below 1000? I would have had my PhD app sent back to me covered in the tears from when the department chair read it and died laughing. There are RNs out there with real PhDs so why don't you ask some of them? They may not say it as harshly, but I'm sure they would agree that a nursing PhD pales in comparison to one from one of the hard sciences. If you want to be taken seriously by everyone else you have to police these programs as a profession. You will be viewed by the rest of the medical and scientific community from the company of your peers. These programs are seriously flawed as it now stands.

Please, for my entertainment- give me your detailed comparison of an RN with a "real PhD" and an RN with a "poseur PhD". Please elaborate on these program flaws. This better be good.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

The agreement was in response to both of you. Did I need to write it twice? What I had written below your quote was all about finding out what your follow through is in addressing research flaws. Looking back I don't see where I'm disagreeing with you and agreeing with Jeff Lebowski- there is one statement that is a challenge, not a disagreement, and two questions.

And since you ask- A class in research covers among other things: various types of research (experimental v. nonexperimental, qualitiative v. quantitative), sampling, data collection, reliability, validity, analysis and critique. It was required for my undergrad degree.

I'm not doubting your capability to find weaknesses in design, sampling, conclusion, etc. It doesn't take a formal education to use logic, and furthermore limitations (which are particularly inherent in self-sampling, self-reporting types of research, etc.) are (ususally) spelled right out in the publication. My suggestion to you, since it is such an important issue to you, is to take up your concerns with the folks conducting midlevel outcomes research directly. My suggestion for taking a research class is that it would familiarize you with methodologies that plausibly you're not familiar with and you may be better prepared to suggest improvements. However, if your 1.5 years in research has made you such an expert that formal study would not be neccessary, then just jump right in.

I agree that badly designed research doesn't accomplish much. There is a reason that research flaws and limitations are published and discussed. It provides direction for improving the quality of the next study either conducted by the same investigators or others. Rather than "wasting funds on rectifying mistakes", it is furthering and bettering research. (That's not to say that I don't believe there are studies published that are a waste of funds- I'm just illustrating the process).

My whole interest in this particular exchange with you is to see what you are trying to accomplish. If you are really trying to contribute to legitimate midlevel outcomes reporting I would think that you would address your concerns at the root. At the most dedicated level that would involve launching your own study. At the simplest level, that would be corresponding with investigators of the studies you have read or investigators that are currently or planning to conduct research on this topic.

That's weird about the research class. We just have a series of stats courses that start from basic stats, SAS programming, etc. and move increasingly into experimental design. I figured it was the same at most other places. My fault for generalizing.

I'm glad you agree that badly designed research is pretty useless. But that doesn't mean investigators should be allowed to put out badly designed studies with the hope that someone will realize how bad these studies are and redo the study in a better way. That's just bad science. It is wasting funds when you put out a badly designed study and then someone has to do another one to "fix" it. Why not do a well designed study in the first place and not only be able save resources, but also be able to draw sound conclusions from it? It really is up to the investigator to provide a valid study of his/her claim. Do you see what I'm saying?

What am I doing about this, you ask? There's not much more I can do other than point out the flaws to people who cite them and hope that someone in a higher position that I am realizes this as well. I'm just a lowly undergrad; I don't have the funds to pop out a good study. So, this is what I have to resort to. Don't get me wrong. As I move up in position (ie. med school, residency, etc), I will do my best to bring these issues to the forefront; I am pretty strong in my position against independent NP/DNP practice. As much as you guys chastise Taurus, he has done a pretty great job bringing these issues to the attention of people who might've not known about them otherwise (such as me, for example). You're right that I should contact the PIs of these studies; for some reason, I've never thought of that, but now, I think I'm going to shoot an email or two out this weekend.

 

[fab4fan]

My point is that there is no reason to have RNs do research at all. There are other better prepared disciplines that are already doing research that RNs are capable of doing. If you want to do research as a RN get a MPH or a real PhD. The RNs are really just trying to take over everything. As an RN you simply don't have the scientific background to do anything meaningful, thats all.

I disagree. Who better to research nursing issues than nurses? We know our turf. I think there are areas where it's totally appropriate, even necessary for nurses to be doing research. Where nursing loses credibility is when it tries to pretend to be something/more than it is. We all have necessary roles to play in caring for the patient, and it's a shame some nurses have lost sight of that.

 

[The right Path]

That's weird about the research class. We just have a series of stats courses that start from basic stats, SAS programming, etc. and move increasingly into experimental design. I figured it was the same at most other places. My fault for generalizing.

I'm glad you agree that badly designed research is pretty useless. But that doesn't mean investigators should be allowed to put out badly designed studies with the hope that someone will realize how bad these studies are and redo the study in a better way. That's just bad science. It is wasting funds when you put out a badly designed study and then someone has to do another one to "fix" it. Why not do a well designed study in the first place and not only be able save resources, but also be able to draw sound conclusions from it? It really is up to the investigator to provide a valid study of his/her claim. Do you see what I'm saying?

What am I doing about this, you ask? There's not much more I can do other than point out the flaws to people who cite them and hope that someone in a higher position that I am realizes this as well. I'm just a lowly undergrad; I don't have the funds to pop out a good study. So, this is what I have to resort to. Don't get me wrong. As I move up in position (ie. med school, residency, etc), I will do my best to bring these issues to the forefront; I am pretty strong in my position against independent NP/DNP practice. As much as you guys chastise Taurus, he has done a pretty great job bringing these issues to the attention of people who might've not known about them otherwise (such as me, for example). You're right that I should contact the PIs of these studies; for some reason, I've never thought of that, but now, I think I'm going to shoot an email or two out this weekend.

No probs, I'm actually amazed I'm spending so much time discussing a topic I generally don't get excited about. Strange. The reason research is a course in my undergrad is because it is the basis for modern nursing practice. Nursing care isn't comprised of random acts, or doing it a certain way because that's the way it's always been done. And nursing research is different than many other disciplines in that some of it is purely investigational, qualitative, descriptive. It's not always about innately measurable variables. Pilot studies are often done just as a jumping off point to help narrow the focus for further research. Those are the kind of studies that aren't developed to prove a hypothesis. I'm trying to explain (and probably doing poorly since I'm not an expert in nursing research, and have no interest other than a utilitarian one) that even though studies are conducted that have known flaws from the get go are not meant to be the definitive answer on whatever topic. Research builds on research and that's the case no matter what discipline. I really do understand what you are saying. And there are some garbage studies that I consider to be a waste of time and funds. Sometimes there is clear value even in research that has serious limitations, and sometimes I have no idea why anyone thought it would be a good idea to publish a particular study. Another common scenario is during a research project running into unforseen problems that screw with the reliability of the data, and it is still worth putting the results of the research out there as a stepping stone for further research.

I tell ya what, if I come across- mind I'm not going out of my way to look for it- any studies published that relate to midlevel provider outcomes, I'll forward a link or citation to you along with my own quickie critique.

 

[AegriSomnia]

Hello? RNs conduct research on issues related to nursing? To improve nursing practice? These are rhetorical questions by the way. "The RNs are really just trying to take over everything." Do you realize you sound like you belong in a cult?

And how the hell would someone with a PhD in engineering be qualified to conduct research on nursing issues? Let me ask Uncle "Buck" about that one, or even someone with a somewhat more relevent degree such as a PhD in psychology, I'll have to ask my sister about that one. It will be worth a good laugh.



Please, for my entertainment- give me your detailed comparison of an RN with a "real PhD" and an RN with a "poseur PhD". Please elaborate on these program flaws. This better be good.

A RN with a real degree that is respected: epidemiology, doctor of public health, neuroscience,... etc. They exist. The useless degree is the PhD in nursing. What I think people are misunderstanding is not that I'm saying that RNs can't do research in nursing, you should just get one of those degrees if research is your thing. The PhD in nursing is just sad and useless and for people that want an easy way to be called Dr. Also, I never said I was qualified to do nursing research. My field is molecular Dx.

 

[AegriSomnia]

I disagree. Who better to research nursing issues than nurses? We know our turf. I think there are areas where it's totally appropriate, even necessary for nurses to be doing research. Where nursing loses credibility is when it tries to pretend to be something/more than it is. We all have necessary roles to play in caring for the patient, and it's a shame some nurses have lost sight of that.

I agree with this. What I was trying to say is that there is no need for a nursing doctorate. This PhD will never be respected as some places have online programs, take subpar students, and don't really teach you anything about research as they are heavy on admin crap. That is not what a PhD is about. You will never see a science offer an online PhD as you will have to have significant experience actually doing research. That is why the PhD nursing degree is not respected.

 

[fab4fan]

A RN with a real degree that is respected: epidemiology, doctor of public health, neuroscience,... etc. They exist. The useless degree is the PhD in nursing. What I think people are misunderstanding is not that I'm saying that RNs can't do research in nursing, you should just get one of those degrees if research is your thing. The PhD in nursing is just sad and useless and for people that want an easy way to be called Dr. Also, I never said I was qualified to do nursing research. My field is molecular Dx.

I'm not sure you can paint all nursing doctorates as being useless. I will admit that a PhD that can be earned online does seem like the fast and easy route to becoming a "Doctor." There are legitimate PhD programs in nursing where you do have to actually work for your degree. It's unfortunate that the DNP has made advanced education in nursing seem irrelevant to so many people.

 

[ScootDoc]

...

 

[AegriSomnia]

I'm not sure you can paint all nursing doctorates as being useless. I will admit that a PhD that can be earned online does seem like the fast and easy route to becoming a "Doctor." There are legitimate PhD programs in nursing where you do have to actually work for your degree. It's unfortunate that the DNP has made advanced education in nursing seem irrelevant to so many people.

If someone can earn that degree online from a fair amount of institutions everyone else is going to think everyone that has it is a joke. Sorry, but it's true. Like I said, if the nursing profession gets its act together to stop offering programs online and to have a rigorous curriculum based on science and not nursing theory (which no one but nurses respect) and administrative courses (which belong in a professional degree program not a research degree like the PhD), then maybe people will stop thinking it's a joke and maybe even get some level of respect. But until then it is unlikely to happen and everyone that has a PhD or MD/DO will think you pretty much bought a doctorate.

 

[AegriSomnia]

Why does it seem like you aimlessly compare your ridiculous MSN with medical school in nearly all your posts. Apples and oranges my friend. I assure you that all medical schools formally educate their students on the ins and outs of research. Its murses, excuse me, nurses like you that fuel the resentment between our two professions. Face the facts, you are a nurse. It doesn't matter how many research classes / post-grad course work you do you will always be a nurse and not a physician. If your clinical skills were half as big as your mouth you would have already diagnosed yourself with little man's syndrome and realized that you are simply trying to compensate for the short comings of your inferior degree.

SDout

Oh, SNAP!

 

[hellothane]

I am not really sure why I keep hearing Phd and the DNP being compared to each other. They are completly different, have nothing to do with each other.

 

[oceangirl]

What is concerning about Aagerisomnia's thoughts are that they are based in his / her opinion. It is a complete bias that many of you non-nursing folks feel authoritative enough to comment on nursing with little or no point of reference. In short it is a 'wet behind the ears' approach and the argument of online degrees which I am not a proponent can be equally argued in all the posts about 'can i take any of my science classes as pre reqs on line'.

The advent of the DNP sadly has watered down the importance of the PhD in nursing. I think if any of you who feel so strongly that nursing research is not important do some research yourselves you will find different.

Below is the Columbia U. DNP/PhD outline. It explains the difference between the two and might clear up the misconceptions.

A physician friend once said to me "medicine is a very humbling profession". I only hope that those of you who sit in the position of 'i'm a doctor (or will be one day) can get off the perch and recognize that the work of healing requires a team.
Drawing your lines in the sand at start an early point in your career path hopefully won't become your MO as you progress.


FROM COLUMBIA:

Similarities between DNP and PhD

Graduates of the two different doctoral programs both participate in active scholarship, including the scholarship of discovery; the integration and application of new knowledge to clinical practice and health policy, and the scholarship of teaching. In both programs, there is emphasis on the development of skills necessary to provide leadership to the nursing profession and to the greater health sciences community as developers and translators of "evidence-based" practices. Students from both programs come together in coursework on ethical theory and decision-making, research methodologies, and translating research to practice and policy. Both types of graduates are prepared to perform as nursing educators in research-intensive universities or other academic settings with advanced degree programs.

Difference between DNP and PhD

The PhD degree is a research doctorate that requires a dissertation and that prepares graduates to function as beginning nurse-investigators and scholars, with the goal of building a program of research as independent nurse-scientists involved in the discovery and refinement of nursing knowledge.

The DNP degree is a clinical doctorate that prepares the graduate to practice independently with the most complex patients, in any setting, utilizing complicated informatics and evidence-based decision-making skills. The degree requires a DNP portfolio that is of equal detail and compelling evidence as a research dissertation. The DNP is the highest degree for nurse-clinicians and prepares them to practice fully accountable care for patients across settings and over time.

 

[zenman]

Why does it seem like you aimlessly compare your ridiculous MSN with medical school in nearly all your posts. Apples and oranges my friend. I assure you that all medical schools formally educate their students on the ins and outs of research. Its murses, excuse me, nurses like you that fuel the resentment between our two professions. Face the facts, you are a nurse. It doesn't matter how many research classes / post-grad course work you do you will always be a nurse and not a physician. If your clinical skills were half as big as your mouth you would have already diagnosed yourself with little man's syndrome and realized that you are simply trying to compensate for the short comings of your inferior degree.

SDout

I'm not a physician and never wanted to be. If I did, I would have become one so get over thinking a physician is God level. I'm not fueling any resentment between our professions, just giving some of you adolescents an "educational moment." If you want to dx me with little man syndrome pony your body up to my 6'3" 205 pound frame and let me provide you with some more education. I play with bigger pu**ies than you.

 

[zenman]

If someone can earn that degree online from a fair amount of institutions everyone else is going to think everyone that has it is a joke. Sorry, but it's true. Like I said, if the nursing profession gets its act together to stop offering programs online and to have a rigorous curriculum based on science and not nursing theory (which no one but nurses respect) and administrative courses (which belong in a professional degree program not a research degree like the PhD), then maybe people will stop thinking it's a joke and maybe even get some level of respect. But until then it is unlikely to happen and everyone that has a PhD or MD/DO will think you pretty much bought a doctorate.

Sometimes you're going to have to put down that Walkman and get into the current century.

"According to the 248 studies that were compiled by Russell (2000), there is no significant difference between distance learning and traditional classroom learning. In other words, distance learning (can be) considered as effective as face-to-face learning, and our results support this conclusion (Dean, et al., 2001 p 252)."

http://www.infoagepub.com/products/journals/qrde/articles/3-4_txt.pdf

Make sure you have a look at these distance education links from medical schools that I had to review for a class:

Online Physical Exam Teaching Assistant By Christina Cavanagh, Douglas Arnold, Richard Rathe, MD, Melanie Hagen, MD, Margaret Duerson, PhD, and Rebecca Pauly, MD. Illustrated site that includes videos; from the University of Florida.

Physical Exam/Interviewing Videos from the University of Virginia Health System. Online videos of physical examinations by organ system, Vital Signs, and Sexual History interviews, using the Quicktime plug-in.

 

[Coastie]

ok, here she is:
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20126345,00.html

and this one has her picture!
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/mary-mundinger/

any questions?

 

[Coastie]

I agree with what the poster said. RNs should stick to bedside care of patients, period.

The whole "nursing phd" is a joke..and yes, the nursing leadership do plan on taking over medicine.

Where have you been?

Hello? RNs conduct research on issues related to nursing? To improve nursing practice? These are rhetorical questions by the way. "The RNs are really just trying to take over everything." Do you realize you sound like you belong in a cult?

And how the hell would someone with a PhD in engineering be qualified to conduct research on nursing issues? Let me ask Uncle "Buck" about that one, or even someone with a somewhat more relevent degree such as a PhD in psychology, I'll have to ask my sister about that one. It will be worth a good laugh.



Please, for my entertainment- give me your detailed comparison of an RN with a "real PhD" and an RN with a "poseur PhD". Please elaborate on these program flaws. This better be good.

 

[oceangirl]

Coastie. . .i'm hoping you are high or something that you are not able to recognize the contribution that nursing makes. To continue to insist that the doctoral trained scholars useless illustrates your ignorance. Please take a moment and look at the history of nursing and the contribution nurses have made. . .both at the bedside and beyond.

You just sound little when you make such demeaning comments. . . your own professional colleagues would likely not agree

1836
A training school was opened in Germany where Florence Nightingale, “The Founder of Modern Nursing”, received her training.


1854-1856
Florence Nightingale was placed in charge of nursing care of soldiers in the Crimean War.
1859
Nightingale published Notes on nursing: What it is and what it is not.
1861-1865
Harriet Tubman nursed sick slaves on the “Underground Railroad”.

1864
National Red Cross established.


1900
American Journal of Nursing was first published.

1901
United States Army Nurse Corps was established.

1902
First nurse practice acts were passed


1908
United States Navy Nurse Corps established.
1922
Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing founded.
1924 First nursing doctoral program established
1930-1940
Shift from public health to hospital-based system of health care.

1936 Sigma Theta Tau International Formed
1940
United States nurses served in WWII.


1949
United States Air Force Nursing Corps established.
1950
ANA adopted a code of ethics.
1950
United States nurses served in the Korean War.

1952 Nursing Research Published

1960
United States nurses served in the Vietnam War.

1973
ANA started certification programs for nurses in specialty areas.


1991
United States nurses served in the Gulf War.
2001
Nurse Anesthetists gain independent prescriptive authority.

Present
Nationwide nursing shortage.


. . .given that nursing is in many ways a thankless profession (perhaps from the small minded thinking of some of the posters ) it is easy to see why. I hope I never ever display this kind of ignorance to a nurse.

 

[oceangirl]

coastie. . and regarding the whole nursing leadership 'taking over' medicine. . . tell me; are they going to arrive in little green saucers?.

 

[AegriSomnia]

The PhD degree is a research doctorate that requires a dissertation and that prepares graduates to function as beginning nurse-investigators and scholars, with the goal of building a program of research as independent nurse-scientists involved in the discovery and refinement of nursing knowledge.

O... M... G... What is that? A nurse scientist? What do they study? Flow dynamics of urine in a foley?

 

[oceangirl]

"O... M... G... What is that? A nurse scientist? What do they study? Flow dynamics of urine in a foley?

What are you going to do research on with PhD in nursing? The outcome of improper insertion of rectal trumpets? "

Aegrisomnia:

Your inability to have conversation that doesn't involve potty humor or the genitals is above par. . .. . .i must give you that. The rest of your ignorance about nurse researchers contribution to patient care is painfully sad. I recognize now that having a discussion with you about nursing theorists is futile.

Good luck as you continue your studies.

 

[fab4fan]

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious he's like so many in his profession. Clueless as to what nurses really do on a day to day basis and how having a good nurse taking care of his patients can make a huge impact on those patients' ability to recover from their illness/surgery.

Another day, another hater.

 

[AegriSomnia]

The question you need to ask is why does everyone else think it is a joke but yourselves? Now, I'm not saying nursing is a joke, just that nursing research is (as well as the DNP.) And as for the content of nursing research what exactly are you studying? There are more qualified people to study whatever it is that you are going to look at. Nursing is a clinical profession and all your training is based on taking care of people, not the medicine and not the science. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that the nursing profession does not seem to realize that they are unprepared to enter the other fields.

 

[fab4fan]

The question you need to ask is why does everyone else think it is a joke but yourselves? Now, I'm not saying nursing is a joke, just that nursing research is (as well as the DNP.) And as for the content of nursing research what exactly are you studying? There are more qualified people to study whatever it is that you are going to look at. Nursing is a clinical profession and all your training is based on taking care of people, not the medicine and not the science. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that the nursing profession does not seem to realize that they are unprepared to enter the other fields.

What you need to realize is that you are not qualified to comment on what nursing does and does not know about its own profession. You aren't a nurse.

 

[fab4fan]

Should have known. Just another paramedic with an axe to grind.

 

[oceangirl]

AHHHH an EMT. I've no gripes but i found this article on the EMS.com website quite interesting. I would be so curious as to how an EMT could
even become a researcher. Really (tongue in cheek) shouldn't they just stick to learning to drive with sirens on or looking at how many foley's can get inserted in the ride between the street and the hospital or what ER has the best coffee and the cutest nurses.


So this is an interview I find very interesting--I learned from it.

Perhaps aergisomnia can also comment as to why EMT's shouldn't do research either given he has such expertise on nursing research.

From an interview with Lawrence Brown on EMS research

"What are the most important attributes that an EMS research study needs to have?

EMS research isn’t different from any other kind of research. Studies must address meaningful research questions, the answers to which may actually change practice. Studies need to be well-designed, use accepted and proven scientific methodologies, and include rigorous statistical analysis. Like all good research, EMS studies need to be objective. Sometimes that can be the hardest part, but EMS researchers have to be open to finding out that the answer to their research question might be completely different than what they thought it would be."

"What can street-level EMS providers do to advance EMS research?

In the end, it’s the research that has an impact on street-level EMS that will make the difference—whether it’s research about a clinical intervention, about how EMS providers are educated, or about how EMS systems are structured. EMS professionals can advance EMS research, first and foremost, by demanding that their interventions are research-based. New treatments or policies should be evaluated before they are implemented, and existing interventions and activities shouldn’t be assumed to be appropriate unless, or until, they are subjected to scientific evaluation"

"Do you see an undergraduate or graduate-level degree being a necessity for an EMS researcher?

Formal research training isn’t an absolute necessity for someone interested in research. Just as there are physicians and nurses without advanced research training who become clinician-researchers, so can EMS providers. Having said that, there is a need for EMS researchers who do have formal research training. Clinician-researchers play an important role in EMS research, but they cannot do it alone. Indeed, developing a cadre of trained researchers is another one of the goals of the National EMS Research Agenda. EMS professionals who intend to pursue a career in research should obtain advanced education in research methods. To that end, the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT) has established a Research Fellowship, through which they will facilitate an EMS professional in obtaining a doctorate-level degree in research methods. The NREMT should be applauded for this display of leadership. Research training, however, doesn’t have to be specific to EMS. All master’s-level and doctorate-level programs in research methods teach research skills, independent of the program area or focus, that are translatable to all kinds of research."

**** it's also great to know that through this site there are countless online learning oportunites on this site from taking care of abdominal trauma to airway management.


http://publicsafety.com/article/article.jsp?id=2083&siteSection=4

http://publicsafety.com/article/photos/1159970379384_1004_main.jpg

 

[zenman]

Coastie. . .i'm hoping you are high or something that you are not able to recognize the contribution that nursing makes. .

You forgot to mention that nurse midwives taught physicians that washing your hands would prevent half your OB patients from dying....and yet that bit of knowledge was denounced by physicians for many years thereafter.

 

[zenman]

Why does it seem like you aimlessly compare your ridiculous MSN with medical school in nearly all your posts. Apples and oranges my friend. I assure you that all medical schools formally educate their students on the ins and outs of research. Its murses, excuse me, nurses like you that fuel the resentment between our two professions. Face the facts, you are a nurse. It doesn't matter how many research classes / post-grad course work you do you will always be a nurse and not a physician. If your clinical skills were half as big as your mouth you would have already diagnosed yourself with little man's syndrome and realized that you are simply trying to compensate for the short comings of your inferior degree.

SDout

Let me give you some more "education." I specifically asked a poster on SDN about medical school research and they said it was a mentorship type learning. So, your blanket statement that all medical schools "formally educate" their students must be incorrect. And what is your definition of formal education? That include OJT?

When I hear ill-informed people like you, Aeri Somnia and Coastie, I just feel free to give it right back to you. IMO, the MD is a clinical doctorate, just like the pharmD or DPT. Only due to certain laws do you have "captain of the team" rights. Real doctorates are those who hold the Ph.D. in their respective fields. Graduates of medical schools should be called "physicians," not "doctors." That has been discussed before and no need to cover it further.

I would never begrudge someone or belittle them because their Ph.D. program didn't have really big words that you had to learn. In referring to the poster I mentioned earlier who had OJT research training in medical school, well I can mentioned that even nursing has a formal basic research course in undergrad and even more formal research in graduate school, and a boatload of research courses, plus research "internship."

Now, does medical school offer you any courses on education? I'm wondering because I've heard that interns teach medical students on the wards, and then residents teach interns. So, do you also have courses on how to teach or it is really "see one, do one, teach one?" In graduate nursing school, you have a formal education track if you want to teach. I would think that in a profession so high up there as yours that you would not only have formal research courses to match that of a Ph.D. nurse, but that you would also have formal courses on how to pass your knowledge on to another person. Whoops, I guess that would not leave much time for learning medicine, would it? So, you must rely on Ph.D. folks for that info, correct? Hey, did any of your professors learn educational methodology? Maybe my wife should come over and evaluate them on how they teach??? You probably think a Ph.D. in education is about as low as you can get. However my wife, who has a masters in education, actually studies neuroscience. Can you believe that crap? She was reading some of the same stuff that I was reading in my Stahl's psychopharm textbook. How dare her invade my knowledge realm....

 

[ScootDoc]

...

 

[zenman]

Lol!! Wow! The ol' I'm bigger and tougher than you are..... over a forum too. That makes it even more funny. How on earth will I ever be able to top such whit. Your 6'3" frame may be bigger than my 6', but you have obviously demonstrated that your brain, specifically your amygdala (The area of your brain that controls emotions btw - I often forget they may not teach trivial things like that in nursing school. Just a little "educational moment" for you tough guy . The only pu**ies you play with is that ridiculous thing on your avatar.... and yourself of course. Get real! Go give someone an enema you pr**k!

btw, that feeling of anger that came over you as you read this post is me toying with that undersized amygdala of yours. How does it feel?

As "zenman" I can assure you that I learned many years ago never to let emotion have much of an impact on what I do. You still lose.

 

[fab4fan]

Funny how it's the people who allegedly have the superior intellect and education resorting to being potty-mouthed when their ability to debate an issue rationally fails them.

Originally Posted by ScootDoc
Lol!! Wow! The ol' I'm bigger and tougher than you are..... over a forum too. That makes it even more funny. How on earth will I ever be able to top such whit. Your 6'3" frame may be bigger than my 6', but you have obviously demonstrated that your brain, specifically your amygdala (The area of your brain that controls emotions btw - I often forget they may not teach trivial things like that in nursing school. Just a little "educational moment" for you tough guy . The only pu**ies you play with is that ridiculous thing on your avatar.... and yourself of course. Get real! Go give someone an enema you pr**k!

btw, that feeling of anger that came over you as you read this post is me toying with that undersized amygdala of yours. How does it feel?

 

[zenman]

Funny how it's the people who allegedly have the superior intellect and education resorting to being potty-mouthed when their ability to debate an issue rationally fails them.

LOl! Yep, he's even insulting a tiger who happens, IMO, to be a beautiful creature...

I'm reading a book here at 0450 in the morning titled, "The Book of Not Knowing." Somehow, this all seems funny reading some of these posts...

 

[AegriSomnia]

OK, let's clarify some things here. I never said there should be no research done by anyone with a RN or whatever. What I did say was that the nursing PhD is a joke and if they come out with a paramedic PhD I will bashing that, too. Nursing doctorates are not needed and they are simply a way of getting the easiest doctorate degree. RNs want them as a way to legitimize their claims (by some and not all RNs) that they are comparable to physicians. That's all. If you are a RN thats great just don't be stupid and get a PhD in nursing if you want to do research; get it in something else. Your career and bruised egos will be better off for it. And for the potty humor I was actually part of a conversation with some ICU nurses that were thing about doing research on the anal trumpet thing. The dynamic flow of urine is a little beyond most nurses so it was a "reach" to throw out there.

 

[oceangirl]

Aegrisomnia. . .

While recognizing your viewpoint and trying to understand your position it really is not logical to minimaize the contribution nurse scholars have made. I think you are overlapping your thoughts on the DNP and the traditional PhD. They are in my opinion vastly different. Currently being enrolled in a DNP program, the main reason I am dropping it is because it is so heavily research laden. As far as why I am in a DNP program--in 2015 the powers that be want to make the doctorate Entry level (i would guess similar if one having to be an EMT-C before they can do any EMS'ing if you get my point). While i am certain given my 15 years in critical care and 10 years as an acute care NP i will be grandfathered in, it's insulting that people are able to go to school and continue through to the doctorate level (as a DNP) and perhaps edge me out in the job market purely based on a piece of paper.

All of this goes without saying that honestly you need to review the contribution that PhD nurses have made to patient care arenas. I find that research is taxing and so labor intensive I realize what I am not cut out for, nor do i have an interest in it.

From handwashing to end of life issues there is a place for the academic nurse researcher and they are very very well funded. Given that the EMT research is very novice perhaps in a few years you will find value in the contributions of your research focused peers.

there is so little mutual respect on these threads--it's really too bad...especially when we are all collectively supposed to be in professions that we should be above all that.

 

[fab4fan]

OK, let's clarify some things here. I never said there should be no research done by anyone with a RN or whatever. What I did say was that the nursing PhD is a joke and if they come out with a paramedic PhD I will bashing that, too. Nursing doctorates are not needed and they are simply a way of getting the easiest doctorate degree. RNs want them as a way to legitimize their claims (by some and not all RNs) that they are comparable to physicians. That's all. If you are a RN thats great just don't be stupid and get a PhD in nursing if you want to do research; get it in something else. Your career and bruised egos will be better off for it. And for the potty humor I was actually part of a conversation with some ICU nurses that were thing about doing research on the anal trumpet thing. The dynamic flow of urine is a little beyond most nurses so it was a "reach" to throw out there.

Uhm, let's go to the replay...

The question you need to ask is why does everyone else think it is a joke but yourselves? Now, I'm not saying nursing is a joke, just that nursing research is (as well as the DNP.) And as for the content of nursing research what exactly are you studying? There are more qualified people to study whatever it is that you are going to look at. Nursing is a clinical profession and all your training is based on taking care of people, not the medicine and not the science. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that the nursing profession does not seem to realize that they are unprepared to enter the other fields.

Now if you want to stay focused on urine and rectal trumpets, fine. That tells me way more than I need to know about your maturity. Meanwhile, I'll go back to reading my professional organization's journals that deal with research related to oncology.

It's your assumption that nurses in research want to equate themselves with physicians. It's possible some do. So do some AAs. Look at physician assistants, who almost seem to take umbrage at being called "assistants" and now want to be called "associates." Why? Because it makes them sound more "doctory?"

If you are a RN thats great just don't be stupid and get a PhD in nursing if you want to do research; get it in something else. Your career and bruised egos will be better off for it.

Did it ever occur to you that some nurses go into nursing research because they really want to improve the profession? That there may be no ulterior, nefarious motives at play? That it may have absolutely nothing to do with you?

Your opinion about what constitutes quality nursing education really isn't relevant because you're not a nurse. You don't know the profession. You haven't even completed your own professional course, yet you have the brass to dismiss other professionals? Sure, you can have an opinion, I suppose. But you know what they say about opinions...

 

[AegriSomnia]

Look, I'm not trying to put nursing down. Really, I'm not. It's a noble profession. However, the whole nursing doctorate, either DNP or PhD (especially PhD), is ridiculous. Why do you need that? To advance the profession, as you say? That is totally unnecessary. Frankly, there are two reasons why nursing doctorates are around: one, because the schools can gouge you for more cash and 2, so nurses can hold themselves out as having comparable education to physicians. As for the DNP thing too heavy in research what is the research? I'm being serious. I think if you really want to advance nursing with research you should get a MPH or DPH because I have a feeling most nursing research is really epidemiology. Also, because some programs are online and part-time (something no other PhD programs will ever do) you will simply not get any respect. It doesn't matter if Harvard opens a school of nursing and has a nurse astrophysics program as you will be grouped with all the others getting those non-sense degrees. If you still want to get a DNP or a PhD in nursing go ahead, but realize that people will be laughing behind your back. I've already seen it first hand in the pharma industry in clinical trials.

 

[AegriSomnia]

Uhm, let's go to the replay...
. Meanwhile, I'll go back to reading my professional organization's journals that deal with research related to oncology.

Serious question. What does nursing research contribute to oncology? There are cancer biologists, biochemists, physicians, epidemiologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, and god knows how many more scientists working in this field. What can they do? In my experience most nurses don't have the background in advanced stat, cell bio, or chemistry to really contribute. I'm being serious.

 

[oceangirl]

Aegrisomnia...

You only consider research scientific?? You must be joking? THere is qualitative reseach that is just as valuable as the qualitative. Have you studied research that you can make such assumptions?

seriously, you have to separate the difference between Phd and DNP. THey are different goals however, both involve a research component. The DNP end research point is a capstone project that will positively affect the health care arena. The PhD of course is a major scholarly work/publication. The research component is not easy. It is clear by your posts you've don't nothing but voice your opinion without any sort of background check into programs. We are not speaking of Online programs rather the true academic arenas. You seem like you have a shoot first and ask questions later attitude. Perhaps it is the EMT mentality of immedicate response and debriefing after the fact. I will not pretend to know about your world of EMT and you shouldn't state untrue accusations that are based on your opinion rather than truths. You asked the question: what do cancer nurse researchers do? You should have googled before you made such a silly statement that embarasses your intellect and brings your immaturity and close mindedness to the forefront of this thread.


And p.s. your statement about DNP wanting to be equal to doctors in education is silly in my opinion. I suspect you feel the same about CRNA's too.

So curious. . .do you also feel the same about the pharm D and others with doctorates or is it just a nursing thing that you feel insecure about? If you are planning on going on to be a PA i hope you realize the NP will be right beside you.


A sampling from oncology nurse research:

[/INDENT]Genetics, Psychological Stress and Cytokines in Oncology Caregivers
ONS Foundation/Novartis Oncology Nursing Research Grant, $9,804
Pei-Ying Chuang, RN, PhD
University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing
Pittsburgh, PA

Quality of Life of Adolescent and Young Survivors of Brain Tumors
ONS Foundation/American Brain Tumor Association Neuro-Oncology Nursing Research Grant, $10,000
Janet A. Deatrick, PhD, FAAN
University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing
Philadelphia, PA

Symptom Clusters in Survivors of Lung Cancer
ONS Foundation/Purdue Pharma Trish Greene Pain Assessment & Management Grant, $9,972
Pamela K Ginex, EdD, RN, OCN®
Lehman College
New York, NY

Colorectal Screening Decisions in Adults at Increased Risk
ONS Foundation/Genentech BioOncology Nursing Research Grant, $10,000
Karen E Greco, PhD, RN, ANP-BC
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
ADT and Metabolic Syndrome in Men with Prostate Cancer
ONS Foundation/Novartis Oncology Nursing Research Grant, $10,000
Joanne M Harrington, PhD, AOCNP®, APRN-BC
Phoenix VA Health Care System
Phoenix, AZ

Sleep, HPA Axis Activity and Paclitaxel-Induced Neuropathic Pain
ONS Foundation/Oncology Nursing Society and Sigma Theta Tau International Nursing Foundation Oncology Nursing Research Grant, $10,000
Sharon L Kozachik, PhD, RN
John Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD

Adaptation/Pilot Testing of Sexual Health for Inventory for Hospice Patients
ONS Foundation/Oncology Nursing Society Nursing Research Grant, $9,909
Marianne Matzo, PhD, GNP-BC, FAAN
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City, OK

Nurses' Use of Hazardous Drug Safe Handling Precautions
ONS Foundation/Oncology Nursing Certification Corporation Oncology Nursing Education Grant $9,555
Martha Polovich, MN, RN, AOCN®
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA
2009 Research Fellowship Award Recipient

Grounded Theory Exploring Family Decision Making in BMT
ONS Foundation/GenentechBioOncology Research Fellowship Award, $20,000
Kristin A. Stegenga, PhD, RN, CPON®
Children’s Mercy Hospital
Kansas City, MO
Advertisement

Advertisement

For People with Cancer • ONS Affiliates: ONSEdge | ONCC | ONS Foundation•Contact U

 

[fab4fan]

Serious question. What does nursing research contribute to oncology? There are cancer biologists, biochemists, physicians, epidemiologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, and god knows how many more scientists working in this field. What can they do? In my experience most nurses don't have the background in advanced stat, cell bio, or chemistry to really contribute. I'm being serious.

What does it contribute to oncology nursing? Learn how to phrase your questions appropriately.

Why does this bother you so deeply? So some nurses are getting published in professional journals. So what? It doesn't affect you.