DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e3181989542

,  

,  

PMID: 19590462

Issn Print: 0002-0443

Publication Date: 2009/03/01


Print

To Use or Not to Use: The Clinical Use of the Title "Doctor" by DNP Graduates

Jean Barry

+ Author Information

Author Information: Associate Professor, Kirkh of College of Nursing, Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Excerpt

The original impetus for this article was based on a proposed resolution by the American Medical Association (AMA) to restrict the clinical use of the title doctor only to physicians, dentists, and podiatrists.1 The restriction also applied to the terms resident and residency. Needless to say, leaders from our national nursing organizations (the Nurse Practitioner Round Table [NPR], American Nurses Association, American Association of Colleges of Nurses [AACN]) responded clearly and succinctly that no one discipline has ownership over the title doctor.2-4
Ultimately, a less restrictive resolution was passed by the AMA in 2008. Resolution 232 A-08 called for AMA state-level organizations to develop legislation mandating that professionals using the title doctor in the clinical arena identify their qualifications and degrees to patients. The resolution also required development of legislative language stating that misrepresentation of oneself as a physician would constitute a felony.5
My first reaction when reading the original restrictive resolution was wonder at the chutzpah of declaring ownership of a word and uncertainty whether doctors and nurses would ever learn to just get along. Given the legislative ups and downs encountered by advanced practice nurses (APNs) in their quests for autonomy and recognition, I wondered how intense the conflict would be over this new issue.6,7 I assumed that the new resolution and its predecessors were at least partially based on a growing concern on the part of physicians about the national proliferation of doctorate in nursing practice (DNP) programs. These practice doctorates have also been called clinical doctorates or professional doctorates to differentiate them from research doctorates (PhD).
To better understand the dynamics surrounding the AMA resolutions and to check out my assumptions, I talked with some nursing administrators and physicians to hear their opinions about the AMA issue. I make no claims that the information I collected is generalizable in any sense of the word. The professionals I interviewed were individuals, currently practicing in acute care, whom I know or were referred to me by colleagues. Although they had many opinions and questions regarding the AMA resolutions, what predominated was the limited amount of knowledge they had about the DNP program and the rationale for its development. Since there is so much published about the DNP role, I expected that nursing administrators, at least, would be informed. In addition, these professionals were also unaware of the proposed AMA resolution before our meeting.
The new AMA resolution does not restrict the use of the title doctor by nonphysicians. However, as more and more nurses with DNPs are employed in a variety of healthcare settings, I believe that many nursing administrators will be confronted by this issue. To respond strategically and effectively, nursing administrators must be well informed about the purpose and design of DNP programs and how these programs can enhance the knowledge and skill sets of APNs and those professionals seeking a DNP in the area of nursing administration.
    loading  Loading Related Articles