to protect their turf? If there's one thing I learned in my short thirty three years on this planet it is that interest groups always TEND to seek for ways to maximize THEIR interests (nothing wrong with this of course but politicians should keep this in mind when considering their input on issues). It doesn't matter if you are talking about government workers, teachers, Dr's or CRNA's. One need only to witness some of the caustic things that were put out by the AMA during the debate concerning "opt out" provisions for Medicare of direct physician supervision of CRNA's.
Without regard to whether or not this is actually THE CASE MDA's PERCEIVE CRNA's as something of a threat. My question is what will their LONG TERM strategy be for dealing with this threat. Possibilities that I can think of might include:
I. Working to increase the standards of education for CRNA's. Perhaps, getting CRNA schools
to introduce an additional semester or two of courses like gross anatomy, and or pathophysiology. This would be an interesting approach since it would probably garner the support of many CRNA's who would benefit (at least in the short term) by the even greater shortage it would facilitate. The decrease in graduating CRNA's might encourage the common use of CRNA's to "go out of common practice" in many locales.
II. Another route they might follow would be to seek regulation AT THE STATE LEVEL which would make it more difficult for CRNA's to effectively practice. Perhaps mandating A CERTAIN TYPE of liability insurence (not availible from CRNA associations) that would make it less viable for CRNA's to practice.
III. Yet another tactic would be to fight the EXPANSION of existing CRNA educational facilities with a result similar to #I above in the long term.
My question is are CRNA organizations anticipating such action and even more importantly what are they doing to fight back?
Aug 28, '02
Go the AANA website, they will provide you with the answers you are looking for with regard to AA's. I believe most of the arguments center around autonomy and critical skills. AA's start the programs with no medical experience.
They are not cost effective, their salary is similar. They do on the other hand ALWAYS earn a higher salary for an MDA (vs a non-supervising MDA). But, so do supervised CRNA's, the difference is that a CRNA has a choice, they can work in a team environment or work on their own. This takes CONTROL away from the MDA's, that is the reason the ASA is pushing for AA's.
What do you think is the benefit of adding another theory?
Why do you think that CRNA's are not integrated with the nursing profession?
One of the first things I looked at was the representative body for CRNA's (when deciding what else to do with my life). This was because I had watched the ANA bend to pressure numerous times both at state and national levels. I really wanted to work in an area where I knew that my professional organization would back me up. not stab me in the back.
Again the AANA is a strong organization, and while we need an alliance with the ANA and vice versa the idea that they should integrate is abhorent (to me).
What would you see as an advantage to integration?
Last edit by lgcv on Aug 28, '02
Aug 28, '02
organizational integration. That is to say it would be a good thing if the ANA and CRNA's cooperated with regard to rebutting onslaughts from the AMA (and their lackeys) when they occur be they PR, legislative, or otherwise. An example of this would have been to run "counter commercials" when commercials were run by the AMA insinuating that CRNA's provide care inferior to that provided by MDA's. Another approach might be to fund high profile studies which demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of CRNA's.
With regard to the theory statement I was alluding to the posts others here have made about the adviseability of not telling instructors while working on my BSN, about my ambition to become a CRNA (even if asked directly what area of nursing I am most interested in). In essence they have said that some (many?) nursing instructors do not consider CRNA's "real" nurses. I assume that an instructor who felt this way would defend his/her viewpoint by pointing out how CRNA's deviate from accepted nursing as outlined by whatever nursing practice theory to which they subscribe. To the extent that this attitude (that CRNA's are not "true" nurses) exists among nursing professionals in general it would be benefical to demonstrate (from a nursing theory perspective) exactly how this is in fact NOT the case. Perhaps this has already been done or perhaps it CAN be done within the framework of existing nursing theory. In any case it wouldn't convince everyone, but it would at least provide a solid rhetorical position from which to debate even those who reside in ivory towers.
Last edit by Roland on Aug 29, '02