Is the AA profession gaining ground?

Any one else take issue with AAs calling themselves "anesthetists"? If I am correct, the title is Anesthesiologist Assistant....

.... you ... You ... you ... you ... I ... I .... You ....you ....your .... you ....

Come on, people.

Anesthetist (n): one who specializes in the administration of anesthetics.

So, looks like they are anesthetists.

That's an emotional stab at AAs, not a reasoned one. This thread, and the larger issue, certainly carries an emotional element. It reminds me of the anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist threads. No surprise, since we all want to defend our career choices and sacrifices.

The pattern seems to be: Anesthesiologists are threatened by CRNAs. CRNAs are threatened by AAs. AAs are thwarted by CRNAs, but have increasingly strong backing by MDs.

I don't know if the AANA has always played fair in its lobbying efforts against AAs ("fair" is a murky term in American politics), but it is clear that there is more to it than merely "suppressing the competition". Let's not deny that many anesthesiologists would prefer AAs merely because you pose less threat to their economic well-being. And so-on.

I don't really have a problem competing with AAs for jobs in anesthesia care team settings, so long as the better anesthetist gets the job. I would like to think that my clinical experience as an ICU RN would give me an edge (it should, all other things being equal, and yes, I took all the pre-reqs mentioned). However, it appears as though politics and money might influence that hiring decision in the future, and not in my favor. That's why I will support the AANA. It's nothing personal, AAs.

Excellent anesthesia care doesn't depend on titles. All the patient safety rhetoric, while of utmost importance, seems (to me) to be peripheral to all of these sad practitioner ninja swordfights.

An AA gets two years to learn everything he needs to know.

A CRNA gets a minimum of 5 years of clinically based academics and clinicals. This number is usually closer to 6 or 7 considering the clinical research required. This doesn't even take into account the years spent by some of us in the clinical setting. As I think it was JWK pointed out, some SRNAs are admitted with only months under their belt in hopes that the magical year will have passed by clinical time. This is still 3 months more than AA's are required. Is it possible that an AA can begin to administer anesthesia having never had any patient contact? Technically an AA student could have never set foot in a hospital until day one of clinicals. From what you tell me though, this is highly unlikely. You give me great comfort knowing that my AA probably wasn't a librarian last week.

Ask yourself why MD's back AA's. We have already established through the CWRU study that AA's and CRNA's are exact equals in their outcomes . AA's claim to command a salary on par with anesthetists. They claim the only difference is billing. So why the adoration? I have heard stories of MD groups threatening to bring in AA's if the CRNA's don't fall in line. A two for one special seems to be a recurrent theme.

Again I refer to my previous post. Why should CRNA's welcome AA's. There is a short cut in your training. AA is the path of least resistance. You can magically make years of clinicals, training and ICU experience vanish. I wish I would have known about assisting anestheisologists 12 years ago. I could have saved alot of time.

In TX im sure the law states 1:2

I didn't realize there was a training program for AAs in Texas. In Ohio, they are 1:1 while they are training.

Come on, people.

Anesthetist (n): one who specializes in the administration of anesthetics.

So, looks like they are anesthetists.

That's an emotional stab at AAs, not a reasoned one. This thread, and the larger issue, certainly carries an emotional element. It reminds me of the anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist threads. No surprise, since we all want to defend our career choices and sacrifices.

The pattern seems to be: Anesthesiologists are threatened by CRNAs. CRNAs are threatened by AAs. AAs are thwarted by CRNAs, but have increasingly strong backing by MDs.

I don't know if the AANA has always played fair in its lobbying efforts against AAs ("fair" is a murky term in American politics), but it is clear that there is more to it than merely "suppressing the competition". Let's not deny that many anesthesiologists would prefer AAs merely because you pose less threat to their economic well-being. And so-on.

I don't really have a problem competing with AAs for jobs in anesthesia care team settings, so long as the better anesthetist gets the job. I would like to think that my clinical experience as an ICU RN would give me an edge (it should, all other things being equal, and yes, I took all the pre-reqs mentioned). However, it appears as though politics and money might influence that hiring decision in the future, and not in my favor. That's why I will support the AANA. It's nothing personal, AAs.

Excellent anesthesia care doesn't depend on titles. All the patient safety rhetoric, while of utmost importance, seems (to me) to be peripheral to all of these sad practitioner ninja swordfights.