I understand your resentment of the DNP program (resentment might be too harsh...),.
It is sort of like some guy who was a cook in the navy trying to pass himself off as a SEAL.
All of the NPs that I know make it very plain they are not physicians. Of course they are also nurses who spent a great deal of time being nurses before pursuing an advanced degree so they are well aware of the differences in education.
I think the major problem comes from the ones who go through academia to doctorates and come out that do not realize their limitations.
but I do see that NPs are a vital part of inexpensive healthcare when everyone "deserves" it.
I think everyone deserves a MD/DO. To find out if you can be turfed to a protocol. Not see if you fit the protocol and if it doesn't work you get turfed to a doctor. No patient should ever be shunted to a doctor. They should always be shunted from.
From the economic standpoint, in my experience it doesn't save money. It just adds an extra level with an extra bill. One of the common practices in hospitals now to get extra money out of payers is to have a NP see patients a couple days a week, then have the physician oversee this and bill for both the NP and the Physician.
In all fairness, if the NP is the one managing the Pt. the NP should be the only one getting paid. Physicians are not reimbursed for administration, they are reimbursed for their clinical practice.
NPs do have enough exam skills to detect when they're out of their league, and I've yet to meet one who doesn't immediately turf the patient out to someone with a clue.
It is not the ones that turf people out quickly that really worries me. It is the ones who think they are "doctors" and they can handle it.
I have only met one in person, a "wound care DNP" who didn't recognize early signs of Group A strep infection on a patient because he didn't know that the skin degeneration is by the same mechanism in burns, Strep A, and pemphigus. So he insisted that the patient didn't have an infection and need to be refered to a doctor because there wasn't local redness or tempature increase. In a circulatory compromised pt., early identification of infection has a mch better prognosis than waiting for grossly obvious signs.
The fact is, he didn't know what he was looking at in his field of specialty. I doubt it is a systemic issue, but it really makes me wonder how often it comes up and if the education really is preparing them for the role they envision themselves in.
Plus, they have enough time in their day to really do the patient education that's going to make a long-term difference in preventative medicine..
I think this is a major benefit of the DNP. But it was always part of nursing. Which means that the rank and file nurses are not doing it.
I also think the DNP can make a significant contribution in helping patients comply with their medical treatments.
The issue is when people start wanting to stop focusing in where they do help to pretend to be as capable as somebody else. I am sure you have noticed that on a large scale, nursing has been steadily moving away from its core foundations and principles in order to branch out to other roles. That is great as long as you are still doing what you are supposed to, but I think nursing as a whole in the US is failing at that. Otherwise there would be no need for so many techs. Which also increases the cost of healthcare when you need to hire people to do the original job because the person who was supposed to be doing it is now "branching out."