Quote from rn29306
I don't see the point in it myself. I am hesitant for the following reasons:
1. Unless someone is wanting to do strictly hearts, neuro, or trauma and the individual school focuses in on this area during the extended clinical portion, then what is the point of the extended clinical in the first place?
2. It is not like we come out of the Master's school unprepared as it now stands.
3. Think about it, if you were a person who didn't want to be a MDA, but were considering AA or CRNA, which looks better you to time-wise if the CRNA route goes full-blown doctorate? Certainly the AA route looks better. Two years post bacc and boom, doing anesthesia. For those of you not familiar with AAs, this does not mean this doesn't concern you. It does.
To the above poster, with all due respect, calling yourself a "dr" or using such title in the clinical arena to a patient is misleading at best. I am pro-CRNA all the way, trust me, but saying CRNA school and MD school are the same is propsosterous. Calling yourself a MD and saying the education is the same really comes across as being a doc-wannabe and trying to be something you are not. What some of these nursing theorist, educators, etc. must realize is that parading around proclaiming these two above statements does not "advance the profession", it makes us look like baffoons.
I am proud to be a CRNA and actually hate wearing the white lab coat that our school dictates. It is amazing how people change around you in attitude and it quite honestly sickens me. What I believe is accurate is to say that CRNAs provide an equal service as MDAs when in the OR suite. We have our studies of patient outcomes (actually conducted by a MD for that matter, otherwise known as the Pine Study) and the MDAs have theirs to stand by.
I am not a CRNA, nor have I managed to make it into nursing school
, yet. But, I am somewhat in argreement with the previous poster, regarding "why" a clinical doctorate program in anesthesia.
One of the things that has always appealed to me about nursing anesthesia is that, academically speaking, it could serve as a great vehicle toward increasing ones clinical knowledge base of anesthesia, possibly on a more narrowed or targeted area of interest, i.e., research, subspecialties (pediatrics, cardio...), etc.. But I guess the question begs, "should this expansion of clinical knowledge base be founded on the Nursing Model of practice or, rather, the Medicine Model of practice?" To be sure, how do you differentiate between the two?
So, I guess it should be determined, under CRNA's current scope of practice, which model of practice does nurse anesthesia resemble on an applied level. We should not have to argue amongst ourselves the vagaries associated with clinical doctorates. All this and more should be clearly defined and standardized by the organization(s), or institutions, responsible for introducing new policy and/or educational requirements for post graduate anesthesia programs.
I think that there needs to be a degree-specific approach when referencing, defining, and standardizing clinical doctorate programs in anesthesia, apart from DNSc, DNP, or DrNP programs, and should it not be constrained to a Nursing Model of practice mentality. Again, I am not a CRNA, so I do not know which model of practice nurse anesthesia most closley resembles.
Would really like to ramble a bit more, but I gotta get my kid off to a soccer game. Chao!