When the Nurse Wants to be called "Doctor"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad :)
Those earning doctorates must generally take a further four semesters or 12 to 16 months of additional classes.

While instruction at each school varies, Dr. McCarver took classes in statistics, epidemiology and health care economics to earn her doctor of nursing practice degree. These additional classes, at Vanderbilt University, did not delve into how to treat specific illnesses, but taught Dr. McCarver the scientific and economic underpinnings of the care she was already providing and how they fit into the nation's health care system.
Click to expand...

nathan-fillion-well-nevermind.gif
 
Um, I don't think the article was positive for the DNP. Maybe you should read the article again. It did a good job of exposing the dirty little secrets about the DNP that folks on SDN have discussed about for years. Do you suppose the author spent time on SDN to do his research?

This kind of national exposure will cause
1) More states to pass laws as they described in the article
2) Raise the standards of the DNP so that it is not such an embarrassment. If they do, it makes it harder, longer, and more expensive to complete. Makes you wonder why get it at all then.
3) All of the above.
 
I must concur with my colleagues Fab and Paseo, this DNP nonsense is embarrassing. The DNP is turning into a quick, online pile of stool.

Oldiebutgoodie
 
Taurus said:
Um, I don't think the article was positive for the DNP...
This kind of national exposure will cause
1) More states to pass laws as they described in the article
2) Raise the standards of the DNP so that it is not such an embarrassment. If they do, it makes it harder, longer, and more expensive to complete. Makes you wonder why get it at all then.
3) All of the above.
Click to expand...

Anything NOT positive for the DNP movement is fine by me.
It was an embarrassment and one can only hope standards are raised.
 
chimichanga said:
Anything NOT positive for the DNP movement is fine by me.
It was an embarrassment and one can only hope standards are raised.
Click to expand...

If the raise the standard to same level as physician, the DNP will become like the DO - physician in title but no one knows that you are one. Ask DO's if they would love to change their degree to MD and almost universally the answer is yes.
 
.
 
Last edited:
NCSUDO said:
You have clearly never talked to a DO or DO students. Yes, there are those who wish they were MDs, but the majority chose to be DOs. Their patients may be confused about the title, but none of them are confused about the physician part. I don't want to beat a dead horse because there are plenty of threads on here that have and continue to do so. Just wanted to add a voice of dissent to the DO comment. Why does everyone need to be an MD anyway? If you hold everyone to equal standards then it would follow that they are equal with different titles.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

Taurus said:
If the raise the standard to same level as physician, the DNP will become like the DO - physician in title but no one knows that you are one. Ask DO's if they would love to change their degree to MD and almost universally the answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Yup, haha.





TBH I don't know where I stand on this....

I've tried to argue about this before but it's a hard argument to wage.


The main problem as far as I can figure out is the public has associated Dr. with this dude is an MD....Not, this guy has a doctoral degree..

So when mid level providers start calling themselves doctor in a medical setting there is a potential for a problem with confusion.

Would be fixed if you introduced yourself followed by your degree, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Im an RN, an I agree DNP is a joke when they start demading to be called doctors...its just really stupid and insulting to the nursing profession and medicine (ive chose i will be going to medical school).

Their claim is i have a doctorate, i am a doctor...well its very misleading in a clinical setting, a DNP is as relevant as a PHD in education ( whatever the degree), it holds no presidence in that type of setting.

Bleh
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't understand why they can't just say,

"My name is Anne and I'm your nurse practitictioner. Can you tell me where you're feeling pain?"

I'm in pharm school and don't even want to be called doctor because I am not one. All my teachers insist that we call them Dr. X, although I think it's lame, and would rather call them Professor X, but whatevs...in the future I'm just going to introduce my first name and that's all.

"My name is Abby* and I'm your pharmacist. What would you like answered about your medication?"

I even think it's kind of weird to call my dentist doctor because I've associated that word so long with a physician or a person with a Ph.D.

*changed to maintain privacy :)
 
NCSUDO said:
You have clearly never talked to a DO or DO students. Yes, there are those who wish they were MDs, but the majority chose to be DOs. Their patients may be confused about the title, but none of them are confused about the physician part. I don't want to beat a dead horse because there are plenty of threads on here that have and continue to do so. Just wanted to add a voice of dissent to the DO comment. Why does everyone need to be an MD anyway? If you hold everyone to equal standards then it would follow that they are equal with different titles.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

There was a thread on the osteopathic forum last year that lasted FOREVER about changing the name to MD or MDO. They even put it up for vote in front of the AOA...

The majority of DO students did not choose to be DOs. And there is a study out there that supports this (i don't care enough to look it up)

Seahawk said:
The main problem as far as I can figure out is the public has associated Dr. with this dude is an MD....Not, this guy has a doctoral degree..

So when mid level providers start calling themselves doctor in a medical setting there is a potential for a problem with confusion.

Would be fixed if you introduced yourself followed by your degree, I guess.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no one knows what the degrees are. It is misleading.
 
Instatewaiter said:
The problem is that no one knows what the degrees are. It is misleading.
Click to expand...

Very well put. I'm a mere nursing student in an ADN program and I'm smart enough to figure this out. People who actually have the extra education think otherwise, though? Maybe the degree makes you "stupider." Or just nursing in general (I haven't been very happy).

To expand a little further, I attended an "RN to BSN seminar" recently. Once you have an ADN, you can get the rest of your education 100% online. BSN, MSN, and DPN. And if you're already an LPN, you can do the entire thing online, because there are LPN to RN online bridge programs. Not sure if you can do the LPN online or if there are MA to LPN online bridge programs (I'm pretty sure you can get an MA online), but that's honestly pretty scary. I used to see DNPs and PAs at my PCP just because my physician is booked a lot, but after my first few months in nursing school, I'm wondering if certain problems I was having (ie, my tonsil issues - had them removed a few years ago after 2+ years of worsening problems) would have been solved faster if I had seen the MD instead of PA/DNP. Not to mention one of the problems I'm having in school is I'm being told to do procedures, but the "why" is frequently left out. Or the answer/rationale is so vague/general that it's hard to remember to do things (for me personally). I personally need to have the examination techniques (for example) connected more directly/in depth with what I'm examining to remember/understand well enough to regurgitate why something has to be done, the order, etc.

Oh, and each professor I talk to has a different answer for how to do something/why. The information is inconsistent. Nurses in general say they want to improve the nursing curriculum and the status of DNP, but based on the actions of my professors thus far, they aren't trying very hard to overcome these "great hurdles" they lectured us on over the first days of the program.

So no, DNPs should not be called "doctor." Nurses constantly complain about doctor egos and doctor power trips, but that's what's going on in with this "DNPs are doctors too!" argument. I think nurses have more ego problems than is discussed.
 
Uh huh. Do a quick search on the DO forum and you'll see some of the most viewed and discussed threads are about degree name change. So there is obviously a lot of interest in changing the degree name.

Osteopathic medical students for the use of a MDO title

DO - Degree Change ...

Degree Change: Interesting post on AOA president's blog

That's besides the point. If you guys are DO students or residents, there will be times when you'll wish you were an MD. Maybe, it will be when the nurse or patient asks you, "What's a DO?". Or, it may come when you're applying to a competitive field in an allopathic residency. You have better scores and personality than your MD competitiors and yet you don't get the spot because you're a DO and not MD. Or, maybe when you're applying for a job... I can go on and on. I've seen it all first hand. If you can go MD, you will want to. It makes your life so much easier. Many DNP's after a while will no doubt feel the same way, even if training becomes as vigorous as MD's.
 
I stand by my previous post, and using SDN to prove a point is ridiculous. There is such a small population on SDN that it is an unreliable source to base your argument from. Plus most of those posters are students only discussing it because it was brought up, and from what I have read practically non of those posts support what your claiming.

I rely on my knowledge of those that are outside of this forum and practice in the real world.

:thumbdown:
 
Last edited:
TSasser said:
I stand by my previous post, and using SDN to prove a point is ridiculous. There is such a small population on SDN that it is an unreliable source to base your argument from. Plus most of those posters are students only discussing it because it was brought up, and from what I have read practically non of those posts support what your claiming.

I rely on my knowledge of those that are outside of this forum and practice in the real world.

:thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Like I said, "Uh huh." I am using real world experience. I respect DO's because they are physicians and have similar training to MD's - the ones I have interacted with in allopathic residencies anyways. Therefore, DO's from these programs are equivalent to MD's. Even these DO's will tell you that they chose to allopathic residencies because they can get better training there. Compared to osteopathic residencies, allopathic ones are usually more academic and in better hospitals with more interesting pathologies and patient populations. I'm sure you will disagree with me, but that's the reality like it or not. I've had DO's who have been my professors and ones I highly respect for their knowledge and skills. Are you going to argue next that Carib MD's are equivalent to US MD's in the eyes of the residency directors? Lol.

Before you go down a path, make sure you do your homework very carefully. You don't want to go through life with regrets because you made tons of assumptions and not your homework.
 
I wouldn't go as far as to say better training, but there are more options for training. Remember I am basing my point on those completely done with training, out of residency and non students.

Your original statement was that DO's want to be MD's and if given the chance they will choose the MD over DO. There are a lot of osteopathic residents that do go to allopathic residencies because of more options, again I would not go as far to say allopathic residencies are better for training, just more of them out there.

Your real world experience is still based on a training programs (residency) and not practicing physicians (after residency) from what I can tell. Caribbean MD's are real MD's, again not basing my argument on residencies because a residency is a training period and not real world IMHO.

I think your confusing practicing with academics or training.

http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/index.html

I will continue to monitor this thread because the original topic was of interest. However this discussion is way off topic, and possibly uneducated to a point on both sides.

Happy trails young man, best of luck to you in your Residency :thumbup:
 
TSasser said:
I think your confusing practicing with academics or training.
Click to expand...

This is where premeds get tripped up. They think that US MD, FMG's, and DO are all the same because they are physicians. Technically, that's true. However, the devil is in the details.

Anybody who has gone through the process can tell you that academic pedigree is extremely important. In theory, an FMG as well as DO can match into the competitive allopathic programs like plastics, derm, ENT, radiology. In practice however, it's nearly impossible to match to these fields even to the worst community programs in the country even if your scores and grades would have gotten you into MGH if you were an US MD. Sure, DO's have their own osteopathic residencies in such fields but there are very few spots and the quality of training is not equal. That's why many DO's apply to allopathic spots.

Why is it important to match into a decent residency? Because it will greatly help you for fellowship matching. If you went to a crappy IM residency, don't count on matching into cards, GI, or heme/onc. You can't practice a field of medicine if you don't have training in it. That's why training and practice are interconnected. So if you have your heart set on practicing plastics, derm, radiology, etc think very carefully about going Carib or DO.

Anyways, I can go on and on. I generally don't argue with premeds. You seem to be the type who likes to learn things the hard way and so be it. So I'll end it there.
 
So from what I can understand from your posts is that you have first hand experience in allopathic and osteopathic training programs?

And your first hand experience in these nation wide programs is that allopathic residencies are superior to osteopathic residencies in all ways? Which is why DO's go to allopathic residencies to begin with.

Not to mention that all DO's want to be MD's because MD's are superior just like their training? Which started all this.

Just trying to clarify, since you have been through the system and assume I am an uneducated premed in these sorts of things. I'm all for learning everything possible when the facts are present and opinions are left behind.
 
TSasser said:
So from what I can understand from your posts is that you have first hand experience in allopathic and osteopathic training programs?

And your first hand experience in these nation wide programs is that allopathic residencies are superior to osteopathic residencies in all ways? Which is why DO's go to allopathic residencies to begin with.

Not to mention that all DO's want to be MD's because MD's are superior just like their training? Which started all this.

Just trying to clarify, since you have been through the system and assume I am an uneducated premed in these sorts of things. I'm all for learning everything possible when the facts are present and opinions are left behind.
Click to expand...

I agree with Taurus's post. I think it's a naive view to try and block the training programs into "better" and "worse." The fact of the matter is that where you train will effect where you can train in the future, and a US MD is the gold standard for moving forward.

In principle, the only distinction between DO and MD is the OMM component. In the real world, there are not that many DOs actually practicing OMM.

There are brilliant DOs just as there are inferior MDs. By academic averages, though, the best and brightest will train in superior tertiary care academic hospitals with last generation's best and brightest. Hopkins sees its fair share of bread and butter cases, but you can be damn sure they come out with a better knowledge of less frequently encountered cases, stuff which could be important in a differential and patient treatment. To train in these places, the anything other than a US MD is putting you at a disadvantage.

I don't think you can head-to-head compare an MD and DO. How can you tell if clinical performance is because of training during med school, or because MDs tend to be more competitive on admission in the first place? By and large, MSI/II are basically the same anywhere, but the board scores at UPenn are higher than the national average for a reason.

The bottom line is that a US MD school will not close any doors for you. You're more likely to get better letters of rec, train with top people in the field, and have more "brand name" recognition. Outside of the Ivory tower's, though, there are likely to be fewer differences. If you match at an allopathic residency in a small community program, you're probably going to get similar training as a DO in a community program. The differences are in the bells and whistles at the top.
 
Valadi said:
I agree with Taurus's post. I think it's a naive view to try and block the training programs into "better" and "worse." The fact of the matter is that where you train will effect where you can train in the future, and a US MD is the gold standard for moving forward.

In principle, the only distinction between DO and MD is the OMM component. In the real world, there are not that many DOs actually practicing OMM.

There are brilliant DOs just as there are inferior MDs. By academic averages, though, the best and brightest will train in superior tertiary care academic hospitals with last generation's best and brightest. Hopkins sees its fair share of bread and butter cases, but you can be damn sure they come out with a better knowledge of less frequently encountered cases, stuff which could be important in a differential and patient treatment. To train in these places, the anything other than a US MD is putting you at a disadvantage.

I don't think you can head-to-head compare an MD and DO. How can you tell if clinical performance is because of training during med school, or because MDs tend to be more competitive on admission in the first place? By and large, MSI/II are basically the same anywhere, but the board scores at UPenn are higher than the national average for a reason.

The bottom line is that a US MD school will not close any doors for you. You're more likely to get better letters of rec, train with top people in the field, and have more "brand name" recognition. Outside of the Ivory tower's, though, there are likely to be fewer differences. If you match at an allopathic residency in a small community program, you're probably going to get similar training as a DO in a community program. The differences are in the bells and whistles at the top.
Click to expand...

I agree with what your saying. However, please re-read the posts for who was saying what.

I never stated that one type of residency was better than another. I also don't think it is informed to say that MD residencies are better than DO residencies. There may be more MD residency hospitals for training than DO residency hospitals, but to go as far and say that DO's train at MD residencies because MD residencies provide better education is absurd. It is simple numbers, there are more and some may not have the luxury of moving to a place for a DO residency.

I am sure there are many places that can offer great educations because of their location and the diversity of the population there, but there are DO residencies that train just as good as some of the best MD residencies. I believe it comes more down to location and population diversity than whether it is an MD or DO training center.

A lot of the problems I see have more to do with a complex that MD's are just better, and that is what I am unfortunately seeing. Yes there are some great DO's and some very poor MD's, but even the poorest of the two could have came from someplace like Hopkins or UPenn.

And as for the Bells and Whistle, I believe that has more to do with the individual training than the location they trained at. Again, even the poorest of the two could have came from someplace like Hopkins or UPenn.

It's ok if no one wants to listen or believe what is being said but the facts still remain facts. There are many things I believe and trust that Taurus has said, and I will still continue to after this, but this is one I don't agree with. At least not all of it. Especially this:

Taurus said:
Ask DO's if they would love to change their degree to MD and almost universally the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TSasser said:
I agree with what your saying. However, please re-read the posts for who was saying what.

I never stated that one type of residency was better than another. I also don't think it is informed to say that MD residencies are better than DO residencies. There may be more MD residency hospitals for training than DO residency hospitals, but to go as far and say that DO's train at MD residencies because MD residencies provide better education is absurd. It is simple numbers, there are more and some may not have the luxury of moving to a place for a DO residency.

I am sure there are many places that can offer great educations because of their location and the diversity of the population there, but there are DO residencies that train just as good as some of the best MD residencies. I believe it comes more down to location and population diversity than whether it is an MD or DO training center.

A lot of the problems I see have more to do with a complex that MD's are just better, and that is what I am unfortunately seeing. Yes there are some great DO's and some very poor MD's, but even the poorest of the two could have came from someplace like Hopkins or UPenn.

And as for the Bells and Whistle, I believe that has more to do with the individual training than the location they trained at. Again, even the poorest of the two could have came from someplace like Hopkins or UPenn.

It's ok if no one wants to listen or believe what is being said but the facts still remain facts. There are many things I believe and trust that Taurus has said, and I will still continue to after this, but this is one I don't agree with. At least not all of it. Especially this:
Click to expand...

I think you're getting yourself riled up over nothing. I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone else, or to say that MD residencies across the board provide better training - in fact, I stated just the opposite. I just saw some points and am adding my thoughts. Seeking out people on an anonymous message board to criticize is just not my MO, so I like to talk to the discussion points, not the people.

What Taurus and I said was that an allopathic residency (moreover a strong academic pedigree) gives you the best chance for matching into a fellowship.

I never said the ivory tower solely pumps out the best docs either. Good and bad docs can come from anywhere, and was pointing out multiple variables that make trying to compare MD and DO training very difficult; those being that your entrance pool is different, and that we have no data on clinical competence afterward.

If you want to argue that "bells and whistles" have more to do with individual training vs. location, then that's just delusional. The truth is that small community programs can't afford - nor do they have the experience - to manage the 0.001% of super complex patients. Which is fine, because the vast majority of physicians don't need to know how to manage them. But if you're at Hopkins on Ben Carson's team you might get to see him separate a siamese twin (Bell and/or whistle) vs. doing bread and butter cranial decompressions.
 
Heard an interesting argument on this issue and wanted to share the perspective.

If you're in a clinical environment treating a patient from injuries from an attempted suicide and the patient's psychologist (PhD) is brought in to speak with the patient, they're called "doctor". So why not for a nurse that has a PhD?

I thought it was interesting. Wanted to know what others on here thought of that perspective.
 
I would think, in a clinical setting, the difference from physician and psychologist being called doctor vs a nurse would come down to more advanced or specialized clinical training and less about the degree type. The doctor has more advance clinical training and the psychologist has more specialized clinical training.

Clinical might not be the right term for this, but I hope the idea is grasped all the same.

Just a thought
 
Last edited:
TSasser said:
So from what I can understand from your posts is that you have first hand experience in allopathic and osteopathic training programs?

And your first hand experience in these nation wide programs is that allopathic residencies are superior to osteopathic residencies in all ways? Which is why DO's go to allopathic residencies to begin with.

Not to mention that all DO's want to be MD's because MD's are superior just like their training? Which started all this.

Just trying to clarify, since you have been through the system and assume I am an uneducated premed in these sorts of things. I'm all for learning everything possible when the facts are present and opinions are left behind.
Click to expand...

actually Taurus is an expert in eveything
 
FireCloud9 said:
Heard an interesting argument on this issue and wanted to share the perspective.

If you're in a clinical environment treating a patient from injuries from an attempted suicide and the patient's psychologist (PhD) is brought in to speak with the patient, they're called "doctor". So why not for a nurse that has a PhD?

I thought it was interesting. Wanted to know what others on here thought of that perspective.
Click to expand...

I've worked in PM&R and psych where psychologists would introduce themselves as, "I'm Dr Smith. I am a psychologist and I'm here to ...." Never a problem.
 
zenman said:
I've worked in PM&R and psych where psychologists would introduce themselves as, "I'm Dr Smith. I am a psychologist and I'm here to ...." Never a problem.
Click to expand...

Although this is an artificial situation (i.e. they can look up the answer at their leisure), I have posted a very straightforward clinical question for Chilly RN / nurse practioner on one of these threads.

I would be very interested to see if he / she can answer this easy question, and produce the relevant clinical guideline.

This is one way to address the concerns that these mid levels are able to function independently.

Thus far, there has been no response.
 
ghost dog said:
Although this is an artificial situation (i.e. they can look up the answer at their leisure), I have posted a very straightforward clinical question for Chilly RN / nurse practioner on one of these threads.

I would be very interested to see if he / she can answer this easy question, and produce the relevant clinical guideline.

This is one way to address the concerns that these mid levels are able to function independently.

Thus far, there has been no response.
Click to expand...

You keep asking these kind of questions. Are you aware that "straightforward clinical questions" are only on forums and not in the world of real life patients, all of whom are different and have their own stories?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
Foreign nurse journey to practicing in the US
Replies
0
Views
770
Tesselate
T
J
Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner Salary in Salt Lake City?
Replies
2
Views
2K
SLC
SLC
E
Can I be the sole PCP as a Nurse Practitioner in NY?
Replies
1
Views
2K
psychnurse
P
Tbrock1994
Psychiatric nurse practitioner mentor
Replies
8
Views
3K
pamac
P
G
RN/Nurse to PA/Physician Assistant
Replies
1
Views
3K
Jack-of-all-trades
Jack-of-all-trades
Top