nursing model vs. medical model

[reflect]

Hi all,

I'm doing more research about the NP and PA professions and have read a lot about both. The only thing I'm not sure of is the type of training each one receives, either the "nursing model for NPs" or "medical model for PAs."

Can you guys tell me more about the "nursing model" approach of training as opposed to the "medical model."

thanks.

[kanzi monkey]

Yep, and you got to give them a tuna sandwich and pour honey on the wound!

...and I have actually done both of these things.

;-)

[KurtDNP]

The following is by no means exhaustive and is what I've gleaned from my personal observations, education, and reading. The term model is not speaking of some specific step-by-step process but, rather, a philosophical paradigm that undergirds the values, assumptions, approach, and practice of a discipline. Thus, I will attempt to differentiate the medical model from the nursing model (where "model" refers to the fundamental underlying approach). Mind you, as society changes, so do disciplines. Some of these are less true now than 30 or 40 years ago but I still think my fundamental points are reasonably accurate.

Medical model TRADITIONALLY TENDS to emphasize empiricism (cause & effect; objective facts relatively separable from the patient), reductionism (reduces the patient to a disease, body part, problem that can be fixed), paternalism (physician over patient, physician over other providers--hence phrases like "physician's ORDERS")

Strengths: Aggressive and in-depth treatment of specific disease processes, keen awareness of objective anomalies, often motivates patients through authority (could be a weakness too)

Weaknesses: Can easily miss the whole-person complexity of humans, less sensitive to subjective evidence

Nursing model TRADITIONALLY TENDS to emphasize esthetics (experiential knowledge), holism (the interconnected nature of human realities a.k.a. mind-body-etc...), partnerism ([i made that word up but I'm sure there's a legitimate term out there] nurses partner with patients to help them reach self-actualization, doing only for them what they can't do for themselves)

Strengths: The HUMAN in human being is validated, empirical evidence is utilized but with the purposeful consideration of the subjective reality that is a legitimate part of the human experience, patients feel like partners and not subjects or children (unless they are...indeed...children)

Weaknesses: Can easily miss more complex physiological anomalies, risk being overly sensitive to subjective evidence