[jwk]

Originally Posted by Ventjock

Chief Anesthetist in an ACT practice.

(correct me if I'm wrong here jwk)

Correct.

The point I was trying to make to neurogeek (doesn't matter if I'm AA or CRNA or MD) is that recruiters don't make good sense. Because I'm the chief anesthetist in my group, I'm involved in interviewing and hiring both CRNA's and AA's. Believe it or not, we have almost equal amounts of each, and hire qualified applicants of either persuasion. We never, ever, use recruiters to search for applicants, nor do we take referrals from them for those looking for positions. It's truly "thanks - no thanks, we don't use recruiters, goodbye, CLICK".

If neurogeek would take the time to do a search on this forum, s/he would find CRNA's that share the opinion, that, in general, using recruiters is not all it's cracked up to be.

[Josh L.Ac.]

Originally Posted by japaho41

I think you sort of have a misconception of what being watched is all about or you missed my point of what patient care experience really means.
So you are saying the your biology degree or whatever BS degree that you had was far tougher than Nursing school. I might retink that statement considering you have not endured nursing school. :

I have done both and I can safely say that my bachelor's in biology was significantly more difficult than my accelerated BSN.

[n_g]

Many of you fail to appreciate the backlash that is building against CRNA's. Every resident, every anesthesiologist I have spoken to never praises them. They just grudgingly say that they need them. The newer generation of anesthesiologists won't take the propaganda by the AANA so well. There is growing awareness in anesthesiology that they have been complacent too long. Look at the Lousiana court decisions against CRNA's doing pain. While you can't get rid of CRNA's, you can hire their counterparts the AA's. Remember who sits in the chairman seats and who does most of the hiring. It's not CRNA's. It's anesthesiologists. Having hiring power means that they have a lot of say how the future will look.

[neurogeek]

Originally Posted by n_g

Many of you fail to appreciate the backlash that is building against CRNA's. Every resident, every anesthesiologist I have spoken to never praises them. They just grudgingly say that they need them. The newer generation of anesthesiologists won't take the propaganda by the AANA so well. There is growing awareness in anesthesiology that they have been complacent too long. Look at the Lousiana court decisions against CRNA's doing pain. While you can't get rid of CRNA's, you can hire their counterparts the AA's. Remember who sits in the chairman seats and who does most of the hiring. It's not CRNA's. It's anesthesiologists. Having hiring power means that they have a lot of say how the future will look.

I really had a nice giggle from your post (no offense). My ex was an MDA, and so I was around his anesthesia group for years and years. Only 2 out of the 12 + peeps (MDA's)in the group were anti-CNRA. This was at a major trauma center in the Dallas/FW area. I also spent many months shadowing a CRNA in the OR while deciding if it's what I really wanted to do. Only once during that time did I see an MDA not support a CRNA in the OR setting. The 2 groups were very friendly to one another and, when asked about MDA hostility, most of the CRNA's said that they had never had much problem with that issue save for a few "old-school" thinkers who were a bit behind times. But the CRNA's I spoke with all told me that the majority of docs they worked with were really supportive. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are always going to be some MDA's who find CRNA's threatening, especially now that the DNAP is available. I'm not naive about this issue. As for who does the hiring......I know a CRNA who just went into partnership with 3 MD's (not MDA's) and they are building a private hospital. She (the CRNA) will be doing all the hiring for the anesthesia department, with recommendations from the board. Her own son, an MDA, is completely supportive of this. So it's safe to say that not always will the MDA be making decisions about employment. Food for thought......

[jwk]

Originally Posted by neurogeek

I really had a nice giggle from your post (no offense). My ex was an MDA, and so I was around his anesthesia group for years and years. Only 2 out of the 12 + peeps (MDA's)in the group were anti-CNRA. This was at a major trauma center in the Dallas/FW area. I also spent many months shadowing a CRNA in the OR while deciding if it's what I really wanted to do. Only once during that time did I see an MDA not support a CRNA in the OR setting. The 2 groups were very friendly to one another and, when asked about MDA hostility, most of the CRNA's said that they had never had much problem with that issue save for a few "old-school" thinkers who were a bit behind times. But the CRNA's I spoke with all told me that the majority of docs they worked with were really supportive. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are always going to be some MDA's who find CRNA's threatening, especially now that the DNAP is available. I'm not naive about this issue. As for who does the hiring......I know a CRNA who just went into partnership with 3 MD's (not MDA's) and they are building a private hospital. She (the CRNA) will be doing all the hiring for the anesthesia department, with recommendations from the board. Her own son, an MDA, is completely supportive of this. So it's safe to say that not always will the MDA be making decisions about employment. Food for thought......

Don't know how long he's been your ex, but maybe you should do some catching up. A lot has changed in the last few years. The AANA has brought "shooting themselves in the foot" to a whole new level in the last few years. Until fairly recently, MD/CRNA relations were fairly cordial, and in fact, in the hospital, still are most of the time. However, as far as the political side, the AANA has ramped up the rhetoric so much that anesthesiologists have simply had enough, and are now willing to fight back. The ASA is not alone in all this - the AMA is on board as well. Add to that the lies, distortions, and even possible bribes revolving around some CRNA's and their fights against AA legislation, and the AANA and other CRNA organizations simply lose credibility.

It would be unusual for MD's and CRNA's to be "partners". In fact, in some states, a professional corporation consisting of those two different types of providers would be barred by statute.

[destined4CRNA]

I don't quite understand why a CRNA would talk so negatively about the AANA. I mean, if you don't like what they're doing, why not speak out in their meetings? Why not become politically involved in the AANA and help to ameliorate their problems - "shooting themselves in the foot," as it has been said? Let's try to be productive, and maybe we'll all be better off.

I've been a critical care nurse for over a dozen years, and, while I admittedly don't "hang out" with MDA's in the lounge, I have never had the sense that they are so bitter about the existence of (or the proliferation of) CRNA's. At least where I have worked (and it has been numerous different institutions), the CRNA's and the MDA's have had good relationships. That is, they work side by side and seem to have reasonable respect for each other.

The only group (if any) that should be concerned / leery about the other is CRNA's about AA's, and AA's about CRNA's. Quite frankly, there are currently enough available jobs for both, but I could understand a bit of competition between those groups, as they do often compete for similar jobs.

So I may be crazy, but whenever I hear someone attack the AA profession (or AA individuals), I can't help but wonder if it's a CRNA feeling threatened. Similarly, whenever I hear someone attack the CRNA profession (or individual CRNA's, or even the AANA), I can't help but wonder if it's an AA, feeling threatened.

So, whether it's an argument about, "why do THEY make more than we do," or "why can THEY practice here and we can't", I fear that we would ALL benefit more in the long run if we don't get too crazy politically. Even to the end regarding health care payment - and the possibility of single-payer systems, Universal coverage, or the like. Trying to exploit one title or another is likely to hurt the whole profession more than it helps.

I don't think anyone questions the fact that (with rare exceptions), CRNA's do a good, safe job administering anesthesia. Know what? So do AA's.
As far as which role is right for whom - that's an individual decision. As a nurse, the CRNA route makes more sense for ME. I also like the idea of (at least for now, as I am a realist) having the option to practice in all 50 states.

[deepz]

Originally Posted by jwk

........Add to that the lies, distortions, and even possible bribes .......

Again, I bow to your expertise and your endeavours along those lines.

Another classic propaganda puff from A$A propaganda HQ in Atlanta.

[neurogeek]

Spoken by a true AA.......enough of this. It's obvious that as an AA u see CRNA's as the evil other and nothing will change that. I have spoken with MDA's recently who still favor CRNA's over AA's because of the experience CRNA's have with critical patients. But I'm sure that no matter what I, or any other RRNA, has to say will ever change your mind. As for me, I don't care if one is a CRNA, AA, or MDA so long as they know what they are doing......

[mcubed45]

Originally Posted by destined4CRNA

I don't quite understand why a CRNA would talk so negatively about the AANA. I mean, if you don't like what they're doing, why not speak out in their meetings? Why not become politically involved in the AANA and help to ameliorate their problems - "shooting themselves in the foot," as it has been said? Let's try to be productive, and maybe we'll all be better off.

JWK's an AA...

[crNURSEa2b]

Originally Posted by mcubed45

JWK's an AA...

Thanks, I had missed that.
When he said that he IS the chief anesthetist in a practice, I mistakenly thought NURSE anesthetist. I'll read more closely.
Well heck, the rest of my post is still valid.