Ohio Nurse December 2021

December 2021 Ohio Nurse Page 13
Students’ use of these devices has important implications for improving their
clinical judgment (Newman & Howse, 2007). Nurses are also being exposed
to the use of variety of clinical management systems, like patient surveillance
systems many of which have implications for ensuring quality and safety.
A significant movement that accompanied the curriculum revolution involved
using pedagogies to ensure students could think critically in clinical practice.
Traditionally, students who learned the nursing process were thought to be
learning critical thinking. During the past few decades, the nursing process has
been challenged as the best approach to developing students’ critical thinking
(Scheckel, 2008). However, current research in nursing education suggests
that students also need to engage in thinking processes that promote reflective
thinking, where they build practical knowledge, embodied thinking, where they
learn the importance of intuition and pluralistic thinking, where they consider a
clinical situation using many perspectives (Scheckel & Ironside, 2006).
Innovations
As nurses assume increasing responsibility for patient care in primary care
settings, the combination of increased clinical and systems knowledge, as well
as the capability to apply and evaluate evidence to practice innovations, can
only have a positive impact. The presence of DNP-prepared APRNs in primary
care will expand educational opportunities. In the short term, the DNP-prepared
APRNs can mentor the MSN-prepared APRNs within the system. Equally
important is the opportunity for enhanced preceptor education for nursing
students in primary care (Dunbar-Jacob et al., 2013).
Indeed, the preparation of the DNP will influence the perception of health
care systems regarding the added value of DNP education. If graduates of such
programs bring an increased depth of knowledge and skill to the clinical arena,
the DNP will likely flourish. If graduates bring little more than what is offered by
master’s-level education, the DNP will not be an attractive addition to the clinical
arena. Thus, the quality of the preparation of the DNP will influence the adoption
of the DNP practitioner and administrator by health care systems (Dunbar-Jacob
et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Challenges in building DNP programs include the identification of qualified
faculty for each specialty, qualified capstone advisors, and qualified clinical
preceptors. A further challenge is the simultaneous education of master’s
cohorts and DNP cohorts. The challenges by requiring faculty to obtain a
doctoral degree, developing critical academic–service partnerships in mentoring
students for practicum and capstone projects, and discontinuing MSN advanced
practice specialty programs while focusing on the BSN-to-DNP and MSN-to-
DNP programs. High-quality DNP academics and DNP clinicians are crucial
to help meet these challenges. Each educational program must assess its
challenges and strategies for addressing those challenges. How we proceed will
determine the impact of our programs on the future of the health care system
(Dunbar-Jacob, Nativio, & Khalil, 2013).
In academia, both the PhD and DNP prepared nurses can work together to
ensure quality education for our nursing students. Both need an educational
foundation to be learned to be successful educators. The distinction of the PhD
concentrating on teaching theory and research to assist nursing to maintain its
scientific foundation and the DNP concentrating on the clinical skills and acting
as preceptor/clinical educator at any level of nursing appear to be the ideal
partnership to develop. Both nurses can assist academia and the clinical arena
in staying current and developing innovative care measures to provide quality
care to clients. When looking at the definitions noted at the beginning of this
work, this collaboration in teaching nurses fits what was noted.