Question

As a DNP and an active member of the nursing profession, do you feel comfortable about regulatory actions that the New York State legislature and board of nursing has determined to be within the scope of practice for nursing?

Answer 1

As a DNP and an active member of the nursing profession, do you feel comfortable about regulatory actions that the New York State legislature and board of nursing has determined to be within the scope of practice for nursing?

Scope of Practice laws authorize RNs to function independently when providing various aspects of medical care.

A nurse is responsible for practicing within the scope of our abilities: nurses are not legally allowed to provide nursing services that they are not personally competent to perform, even if New York law generally allows a nurse to provide the service. If a nurse practices outside the personal scope of competence or outside of what is allowed by New York law, they could be charged with professional misconduct.

Regulations that define scope-of-practice limitations vary widely by state. In some states, they are very detailed, while in others, they contain vague provisions that are open to interpretation (Cunningham, 2010). A few states have kept pace with the advancement of the social insurance framework by changing their extent of-rehearse controls to enable NPs to see patients and endorse prescriptions without a doctor's supervision or joint effort. Be that as it may, the larger part of state laws linger behind in such manner. Accordingly, what NPs can do once they graduate fluctuates broadly the nation over for reasons that are connected not to their capacity, their instruction or preparing, or security concerns (Lugo et al., 2007) yet to the political choices of the state in which they work. For instance, one gathering of specialists found that 16 states in addition to the District of Columbia have directions that enable NPs to see essential consideration patients without supervision by or required coordinated effort with a doctor . Similarly as with some other essential consideration suppliers, these NPs allude patients to a strength supplier if the consideration required stretches out past the extent of their instruction, preparing, and abilities. There are fundamental contradictions in this situation. Educational standards—which the states recognize—support broader practice by all types of APRNs. National certification standards—which most states also recognize—likewise support broader practice by APRNs. Moreover, the contention that APRNs are less able than physicians to deliver care that is safe, effective, and efficient is not supported by the decades of research that has examined this question (Brown and Grimes, 1995; Fairman, 2008; Groth et al., 2010; Hatem et al., 2008; Hogan et al., 2010; Horrocks et al., 2002; Hughes et al., 2010; Laurant et al., 2004; Mundinger et al., 2000; Office of Technology Assessment, 1986). No investigations recommend that consideration is better in states that have more prohibitive extent of-rehearse directions for APRNs than in those that don't. However most states keep on confining the act of APRNs past what is justified by either their instruction or their preparation.