There are many forces trying to prove that nurse practitioners (NPs) are not qualified to practice independently, care for patients with chronic and complex illnesses, or lead a healthcare team. We are often referred to as “second rate” or a substitute for physicians now that there are not enough physicians to go around. More years of training for physicians versus NPs is a sticking point often used to back up this argument. Clearly, it takes more years of formal training to become a family physician than an NP.

Does this mean that NPs are not competent or capable of providing independent care? Do fewer hours of training, in a different healthcare model, make NPs less capable of doing what we do? Just as we would look critically at a research study or at evidence-based medicine, we must closely examine these data. Is the implied conclusion valid? Just because one profession completes a certain number of training hours does not mean that another profession—with different and fewer hours of training—is not capable of a similar practice.