MD, DO, NP, DC, OD -- Who deserves the title PCP?

Specialties NP

Published

our professional scope of practice asserts that our role is to assess, diagnose, and treat in health and illness - head to toe, physical and behavioral.

from assessing, diagnosing, treating - diabetes, thrombosis, heart disease, infection, emphysema, hep c, hiv, etc, to rendering prenatal care, and preventative care - we are primary care providers. we make life and death decisions each day with our patients in managing disease - thrombosis management and prevention; hep c management; hiv management, heart disease and cva management; women's health - yet we are given less legitimacy in the social security act and cms section 410.20 than a chiropractor or optometrist.

i have nothing against chiropractic physicians mind you, but take a look at chiropractic.

cannot prescribe - not even an aspirin

procedures? - scant more than "moist heat";

assessment - can't even look into your ear according to their scope of practice

educational requirements? - a bachelors degree?, nope - about a year and a half of college study (90 credits), a 2.5 gpa, and 3 yrs of study at a chiropractic school.

how do chiropractors see themselves? go to http://schools.naturalhealers.com/lifewest/

chiropractic is a total-body healthcare system, and not a method of pain management. as a gatekeeper for direct access to the health delivery system, the responsibilities of the doctor of chiropractic as a primary care clinician include wellness promotion, health assessment, diagnosis, and the chiropractic management of the patient's health care needs. when indicated, the doctor of chiropractic may also co-manage, consult with, or refer to other health care providers

optometry - about the same. 65 college credit hours (a year and change), 2.5 gpa, a 4 yr program. -- then - slit lamp, snellen, better or worse, eyeglasses or contacts? see you in two years.

that's all fine. but, here's the rub. the chiropractor and optometrist - according to section 1861®(1) of the ssa,and cms sec. 410.20 -- are designated a physician with all of the privileges and honors of that professional designation.

the apn? nope. even though our scope of practice is much, much broader; our responsibility and liability - far greater. yet we are still treated as hand-maids, and put in our place as second class providers - the extenders, the mid-levels. none of us treat mid-way; perform half of a procedure; help the patient heal only half the way through a disease.

does any other primary care provider treat heart disease more or differently than you as a provider treat heart disease? does the physician carry more responsibility or liability? no. a pcp is a pcp. and god bless all of us, md, do, apn.

there is no comparison.the nurse practitioner's contribution to the health of our nation is every bit as important as the md, or do, and far above that of the dc or od. in the clinic we shoulder the responsibilities and liabilities - every one of our actions or inactions as a provider -- every moment we spend with a patient is legally ours to bear alone....

yet how many times have you been told - sorry, we need a physicians signature on that... you can't order that - it has to be ordered by a physician. we can't send that to you - we have to send it to the physician. sorry, we only credential physicians.

am i the only apn that feels a little bewildered and disgusted by this?

i have no innate yearning or desire to be called a physician mind you, its not an ego thing. but what i do have is a desire for, is to be respected for my role as a primary care provider by hospitals, insurers, labs, etc, so that i can do my job.

why i'm writing this.

as health care and our roles evolve, i believe that it is our responsibility to lobby for the advancement of our professional role, and with that updates to the ssa and cms sec. 410.20, two of the main documents that define the apn to other professionals. this is critical so that other professionals will not be confused about our role, our education, our abilities, and our responsibilities to our patients.

we regularly talk about fighting battles in my home state of tennessee, but are we only treating the symptoms of our professional legislative, political, and administrative woes? - shouldn't we also be addressing the root problems from which most of these arise - such as our absence from ssa 1861®(1)and cms sec. 410.20.

it may be time for each individual apn to write, call, or otherwise encourage other apn's as well as our advocates at ana, and our legislators to argue in favor of apn pcp's inclusion in cms sec. 410.20 and ssa 1861®(1).

because as the role of the nurse practitioner continues to evolve in response to changing societal and health care needs, so should the ssa and other government acts that define us to the nation.

social security act 1861

http://www.ssa.gov/op_home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

so. if you agree, take a moment and write someone. don't sit back and do nothing. :rotfl:change happens because of you. :) write a short note to your local chapter of ana, the national ana, george bush, your senators and your representatives and voice your desire for an updated cms sec. 410.20 and ssa 1861®(1) to help apn's across the nation do their job. thanks gang. http://www.firstgov.gov/contact/elected.shtml

respectfully,

r. martin

family nurse practitioner, chief manager and primary care provider

campbell station primary care associates

11541 kingston pike, ste 101

knoxville, tn 37922

I agree with all of this above. If NP's are practicing medicine under the supervision/collaboration of a physician, then why are there two professions, PA's and NP's. NP's are trained in nursing and come out to practice medicine. How does that work?

Because there is a difference. PAs can only practice medicine; NPs benefit from their background in nursing. Hopefully, they will be able to integrate it into their practice.

My arguement is not with NP's, because most who understand the above, do just fine. The arguement is with the NP movement and this independence garbage, given that there is obviously less education provided in the NP program than PA, despite PA's not trying to be independent. We just don't get how this could even be considered after 40 or so graduate credits in nursing theory and "soft" medicine (they call them nursing) courses.

Why so much crying over independence? I think most NP's know when to call for help, same as PA's.

As far as that "less education" statement I made above, I challenge those who disagree with to go to any university's online course catalog and compare an FNP or ANP cirriculum with the PA cirriculum at the same university. It is glaringly "softer" in most cases. The example I used because it is local to me is Marquette University.

They are 42 credits over two years without summers for NP, and 130 hours with summers full-time for PA. The clinical year for NP programs is not even full-time (ie: less than 40 hours per week). How can you compare that? How can you be ready for independence after just that? I am sure there are more rigorous NP programs, I just have not seen them. I will stand corrected if someone can show me an NP program that is that rigorous.

You're trying to make a point of a "rigorous" program. That's nothing to be proud of from an educational standpoint. I'd rather go part-time and have time to let that knowledge soak in and to practice than to rush around barely keeping my head above water...which is not conducive to learning and retention.

I compared Duke University PA and NP programs. The PA program is 11 months pre-clinical and 13 months clinical practice. The thing I prefer about the NP is that you can focus on an area; I'm considering Adult NP or Psych NP. In either of those, I would not want to have to do clinical in peds, ob-gyn, general surgery, etc. so the the total hours in PA clinical vs the 600-700 hrs in NP clinical mean little to me. If I wanted I could just continue taking the clinical courses till I had several years of clinical.

Some people bark about nursing experience not being relevant. That's bull. I've been around 30 years and know my drugs and diseases, labs, etc.. Even though an NP would be ordering procedures, tests, etc. rather than actually doing them, the years of doing them comes in handy and can benefit both the patients and nursing staff in the way in which they are ordered.

Even though I already have my masters in nursing, the post-masters programs I'm looking at would still take me 2 years to complete.

>

I agree with zenman, the nursing experience is very relevant. I work as an RN in home health. In this area especially, we very often "recommend" tests, treatments, etc. to be performed. We are also often the eyes and ears for the MD's about a patient's condition and are pretty good at assessment and picking up on changes. This goes hand in hand with what the role of the NP is and only helps to make a better NP.

What I meant, but not what I said, was that nursing experience is no more relevant than say ER tech, paramedic, respiratory therapist, etc. in the preparation of an individual for midlevel providership (is that a word?).

I would argue that my ER tech experience was more helpful in my personal preparation than was the nursing. The reason for that is that as a tech, my job was to assist the docs in procedures, apply casts and splints, do EKG's, do CPR, etc. The nurses were too bust doing other nursing activities to allow them to learn by "osmosis" from the docs. I am sure some nursing jobs allow you to do more of this. My point is that nursing is not medicine.

What I do stand-by, exactly as I said it earlier, is that nursing experience is NOT a substitute for learning how to be a midlevel medical provider. That is the beef I have. The training is too "thin" to adequately do this. NP's must "catch up" more than other disciplines because of this.

Bottom line for me, if you pit a new grad PA and a new grad NP, both with identical RN experience, you will see the PA shine in most practice settings. I have seen this numerous times, and even hear it from NP's and people who hire both types of practitioners.

Pat

Pat

And for Zenman's comment about PA's only being able to practice medicine. For your info, ALL of nursing is in the scope of practice of a physician. PA's can do ANYTHING that their supervising physician does. That includes start IV's, give injections, change dressings, teach patients, perform counseling, etc.

So, don't flatter yourself with that, "Can only practice medicine" stuff. There is not much that this scope of practice does not cover.

Pat

Hey pat

I agree with you the NP is a "softer" course compared to a PA course. I volunteer at a hosp in minneapolis and I brought this topic to them doing lunch. And the NP's agree about what you said. Both is great professions but one is just in-depth though medince than another. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I guess if people want more than they need to go to med school....just my thought on this topic

wish every luck

from the twin cities

What I do stand-by, exactly as I said it earlier, is that nursing experience is NOT a substitute for learning how to be a midlevel medical provider. That is the beef I have. The training is too "thin" to adequately do this. NP's must "catch up" more than other disciplines because of this.

Frankly you would have to be an idiot not to pick up "some learning" during years of nursing. My God, you know all your drugs, how to do procedures, the protocols for a number of conditions, how to interact with patients, etc, etc.. It's not a 'substitute" but it is some of the most valuable experience one could have. :)

And for Zenman's comment about PA's only being able to practice medicine. For your info, ALL of nursing is in the scope of practice of a physician. PA's can do ANYTHING that their supervising physician does. That includes start IV's, give injections, change dressings, teach patients, perform counseling, etc.

So, don't flatter yourself with that, "Can only practice medicine" stuff. There is not much that this scope of practice does not cover.

Pat

Let me flatter you with my years of experience! I've taught many full blown MDs a lot of those procedures you mentioned...cause they didn't learn it in school or clinical rotations. Just a few out of hundreds of my real life experiences include the MD who said he had never drawn blood in his life; the resident during a code who had the face mask on upside down; wrong dosages, some of the worse aseptic techniques I've seen; pushing "dangerous drugs" rapidly because "No one ever told me how, etc, etc.." Granted, many MDs don't have to do a lot of the procedures that nursing does...guess there is a reason. I don't care whether one is a PA or NP student, any prior experience, including age is a benefit.

Ped Neurosurg and Family Practice don't have the same training. A Ped Neurosurg training is completely different from that of a primary care specialist. (ped neurosurg-7 yrs of training AFTER Med School...Primary Care 0-3 years after med school) Other than medical school, its completely different. I am fully aware of a nurse practitioners responsibilities however, they still are not Physicians. They are not their own profession. They are part of a profession.the profession of Nursing. Optometry is not a subspecialty of Ophthalmology, it is an alone sitting specialty. Ophthalmology and Optometry are two different professions. Unlike NP's which is an extention of nursing. You said that Nurse Practitioner practice similarly to Physicians and because of that, you want the privileges of a Primary Care Physician. Thats not true simply because when you say you practice similarly to a physician, you're saying that you practice similarly to a Cardiothoracic Surgeon, which is a Physician. You may practice similarly to a Medical specialist, but not a Physician. And for that, you shouldn't be given the Basic privileges of a Physican. What you're not getting is that the basic privileges of a Primary Care Physician are the same privileges of a neonatologist, cardiologist, and every other specialist. To give you that power to only practice primary care medicine would be ridiculous in every sense of the word. You are not a specialist of Medicine, you're a specialist of Nursing.

Why are you rambling on about cardiothoracic surgery or neurosurgery training? I'm not certain what that has to do with the original post. As a rural health nurse practitioner I understand what OP is saying. Many patients are assigned to my collaborating physician and yet have never in 4 years seen him- only me. He has to sign their paperwork without even knowing the patient. It doesn't make sense, and gives him more work that he doesn't need. What is it that you think nurse practitioners do all day in the office or hospital? Change bedpans? Give baths or pass meds? Are we specialists at this?

Frankly you would have to be an idiot not to pick up "some learning" during years of nursing. My God, you know all your drugs, how to do procedures, the protocols for a number of conditions, how to interact with patients, etc, etc.. It's not a 'substitute" but it is some of the most valuable experience one could have. :)

I agree. I did not say it is not useful, I said it is not a substitute, and stand by that. That is why the "soft" instruction method of NP programs is still not enough.

Pat

Let me flatter you with my years of experience! I've taught many full blown MDs a lot of those procedures you mentioned...cause they didn't learn it in school or clinical rotations. Just a few out of hundreds of my real life experiences include the MD who said he had never drawn blood in his life; the resident during a code who had the face mask on upside down; wrong dosages, some of the worse aseptic techniques I've seen; pushing "dangerous drugs" rapidly because "No one ever told me how, etc, etc.." Granted, many MDs don't have to do a lot of the procedures that nursing does...guess there is a reason. I don't care whether one is a PA or NP student, any prior experience, including age is a benefit.

I'm not flattered, but as I said above, nursing experience is most certainly helpful. It is NOT a substitute for rigorous, medical education, which should be required prior to practicing medicine. NP's do not obtain this rigorous medical training, but still practice medicine upon graduation.

Pat

Hey pat

I agree with you the NP is a "softer" course compared to a PA course. I volunteer at a hosp in minneapolis and I brought this topic to them doing lunch. And the NP's agree about what you said. Both is great professions but one is just in-depth though medince than another. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I guess if people want more than they need to go to med school....just my thought on this topic

wish every luck

from the twin cities

Thanks dorise,

I truly believe most NP's do understand this.

Everyday I hear from nurses that I work with something like this:

"I'd really like to be a PA, but I don't have time to go full-time for three years. I think I'll just do the NP thing so I can stay working full-time here and go to school part-time. I can still get finished in two years."

Pat

Thanks dorise,

I truly believe most NP's do understand this.

Everyday I hear from nurses that I work with something like this:

"I'd really like to be a PA, but I don't have time to go full-time for three years. I think I'll just do the NP thing so I can stay working full-time here and go to school part-time. I can still get finished in two years."

Pat

Part time would take longer than 2 years, but it really doesn't matter. The education (at least where I went) sucks something fierce. I learned more by reading medical journals while the instructors were talking about the glory of Florence Nightengale.

+ Add a Comment