FNP Admission Privileges

[revolution]

I currently live in Arizona where NPs apparently don't require any collaboration with a physician and can practice solo. Would a FNP in private, family typically be able to admit a patient to a hospital if needed?

Generally, in the US can FNPs admit?

[Dr. Tammy, FNP/GNP-C]

So it's all about semantics? Any other profession allowed to furnish?

I must say it's interesting and more than a bit frustrating to read about the never ending mosaic (mishmash) groups of laws NP's must wade through....

I totally agree. Some on this board have argued and dismissed the functions in the form of practice differences between medicine and advance practice nursing as nothing more than semantics.

Unfortunately, it is the very semantics in the form of language that governs issues such as scope of practice, need for supervision and functions of advance practice nursing such as prescription and admission privileges.

I strongly feel, however, that once there is a general consensus of practicing NP's that their practice is informed, directed and based on nursing, NP's will be able to collectively assert to authority structures that certain functions of the NP, although similar to other clinical-based professions, are indeed part of the practice of advanced nursing.

I keep reminding myself that such changes will be slow and hard fought. There is a vast philosophical gap for sure, between the hard core traditionalists and those who are progressive. Not so long ago, most thought that taking blood pressures was considered the practice of medicine. Things do change, just takes a bit of time.

[Dr. Tammy, FNP/GNP-C]

Any other profession allowed to furnish?

I'm unaware of any other profession within California, or any other state for that matter, who prescribes, yet the function is not called so--that is demeaned to a subcategory of the same function by the utility of such a term as "furnishing" At least they didn't choose the term "slinging", the act of providing medications by those who are not really physicians"

[JDCitizen]

I'm unaware of any other profession within California, or any other state for that matter, who prescribes, yet the function is not called so--that is demeaned to a subcategory of the same function by the utility of such a term as "furnishing" At least they didn't choose the term "slinging" :), the act of providing medications by those who are not really physicians"

I kind of thought the maybe the wording was in such a way as to keep the California association of medicine happy....

[jer_sd]

I'm unaware of any other profession within California, or any other state for that matter, who prescribes, yet the function is not called so--that is demeaned to a subcategory of the same function by the utility of such a term as "furnishing" At least they didn't choose the term "slinging", the act of providing medications by those who are not really physicians"

The only other class that furnish medicaitons are natropathic doctors in California and this was recently gained in the last few years when they first achieved licensure.

Jeremy

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

It's all semantics in the state of CA. In order to "furnish", the NP must possess a DEA number.

furnishing=prescribing

[Dr. Tammy, FNP/GNP-C]

It's all semantics in the state of CA. In order to "furnish", the NP must possess a DEA number.

furnishing=prescribing

That's such a great point and underpins the very function of furnishing as really prescribing. Although NP's can "furnish" non schedules with just a furnishing certificate by the BRN, for scheduled meds, though, DEA regulates and I don't recall any language regarding "furnishing"

The act of making scheduled meds is supported as "prescribing" in another area. Here in California, physcians may not "prescribe" marijuana, because the act of "prescribing" a scheduled I substances is in conflict with DEA. Therefore, physicians "recommend" marijuana.

A silly, yet sailient point for sure, yet underscores the fact that when a NP "furnishes" scheduled meds in California, at least in the context of Federal Law, the act in and of itself is "prescribing." I could be wrong, but I think Federal Law and Regulation trumps state Law and Regulation.

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

I could be wrong, but I think Federal Law and Regulation trumps state Law and Regulation.

Generally, if state law is more stringent, then it trumps federal law.

And, the word, "furnish", as opposed to, "prescribe", isn't something that is a legal term. It's really the act that is legal or not. And, to be legal, the NP must possess a DEA number that by federal guidelines, is necessary in order to prescribe scheduled drugs. The state(s) can refer to it in any other word, I suppose; it's still prescribing.

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

that is demeaned to a subcategory of the same function by the utility of such a term as "furnishing"

And, that's my take on it, too. In CA at least; the "demeaning" of the word (furnishing) that is used to describe what the other 49 states are doing (prescribing).

[core0]

I'm unaware of any other profession within California, or any other state for that matter, who prescribes, yet the function is not called so--that is demeaned to a subcategory of the same function by the utility of such a term as "furnishing" At least they didn't choose the term "slinging", the act of providing medications by those who are not really physicians"

PAs in California write "drug orders", they do not prescribe. However, the DEA has ruled that for DEA purposes they are prescriptions.

David Carpenter, PA-C

[JDCitizen]

So in California with DEA number in hand one gets to prescribe, furnish of whatever... Important part is the NP gets to take care of the patient without running to big daddy each and every time. Most important part is the patient gets taken care of....