128 ■ I: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ROLE DELINEATION
APRN DNPs: SEE ONE, DO ONE, TEACH ONE?
As demonstrated in the case studies previously, both authors are expert clinicians, doctor
nursing practice graduates, recognized leaders, and nurse educators. However, neither
received formal training as a nurse educator (beyond one doctoral nursing education
course each elected to take) during their doctoral program, necessitating independent
study to attain the certified nurse educator (CNE) certificates. In contrast, other nurs-
ing terminal degree programs do include formal nurse educator curricula built into the
program of study, but lack the advanced clinical component that provides the credibility
for a clinical doctorate. Some nursing leaders postulate that one of the goals in the cre-
ation of the DNP was to help alleviate the nursing faculty shortage (Minnick, Norman, &
Donaghey, 2013). In fact, more than 30% of DNP graduates do go into academia (Zungolo,
2009) and it makes perfect sense that APRN– DNP clinicians teach in all levels of nursing
education, particularly in NP and DNP programs. Nursing accreditation bodies further
require that the director of an NP program hold a doctoral degree (CCNE, 2013). The
AACN as well as most state boards of nursing require directors of NP programs to be, at
the minimum, master’s-prepared. A survey of 220 nursing deans and directors identified
the top five desired characteristics of novice faculty (Penn, Wilson, & Rosseter (2008):
- Teaching skills
- Knowledge, experience, and preparation for the faculty role
- Curriculum/ course development skills
- Evaluation and testing skills
- Personal attributes
Ironically, formal education in the majority of these skills is specifically prohibited
by the accreditation body to be included in DNP curriculum! Fortunately, many educa-
tional conferences, continuing nursing education programs, and faculty development
agendas provide content to foster teaching excellence for clinician educators.
A quandary still exists. APRN DNP’s are both needed in practice to further develop
and improve the national health care agenda and needed in the educational settings to
prepare the future nursing work force to provide the highest quality, safe, and efficient
health care. As we envision the future of nursing as delineated in the IOM report (2010),
is it time to reconsider a DNP clinical educator track as a solution to do more than “see
one, do one, teach one?” The DNP graduate is being recruited to fill vacancies not only
in practice and administrative roles within health care settings but also in academia
particularly in programs that prepare master’s- level advanced practice nurses, offer the
DNP terminal degree, or are experiencing a shortage of PhD- prepared faculty.
The DNP prepared advanced practice nurse is also gaining more popularity in
clinical practice. According to the DNP Fact Sheet (AACN, 2015b), employers are rec-
ognizing the contributions the DNP- prepared nurse bring to practice settings. It also
appears that with this change many issues and questions arise, some of which have
already been discussed previously. Questions that still linger include but are not lim-
ited to: What are the benefits of DNP versus MSN preparation of APRNs? Are prac-
tice settings recognizing the difference between doctoral- level advanced practice and
master’s- level advanced practice with respect to salary? When will the impetus for the
DNP becoming the entry level for advanced practice actually occur?
For the most part, it appears the benefits of the DNP verses MSN are both personal
and professional. Seeking and obtaining the DNP is both personally challenging and
rewarding. It is the practitioner who does not accept the status quo that seems to be driven
to obtain a terminal degree before it is actually formally mandated. In the ever- changing