Antagonistic NP Article

elkpark · Jul 10, 2017

I'm not an NP, I'm certified in another advanced practice specialty, but I read the article and, apart from quoting some physicians who were negative about NPs, I thought the overall tone of the article was somewhat positive (certainly not "antagonistic").

Dodongo, APRN, NP · Jul 10, 2017

...apart from quoting some physicians who were negative about NPs...

That's... the entire article. Anonymous anecdotes from physicians disparaging NPs. I honestly don't see how you can't call it antagonistic. It doesn't cast NPs in a positive light, rather, it's quite negative and actively opposed to NP practice without direct physician supervision - in other words, antagonistic. The purpose of the article is to make NPs look incompetent.

caliotter3 · Jul 11, 2017

Not an NP, but found it easy to identify that this article was biased opinion as described by several of the people who commented. I also found the graphics to be offensive to any attempt at seriousness. NP's are not clowns or charletons but it would be hard to think otherwise after reading this "journalism".

Jules A, MSN · Jul 11, 2017

My only complaints were they used anonymous sources for some of the negative stories and the usual cringe worthy comments about NPs greatest value being handholding which largely comes from our own mouths.

Other than that I felt it was fairly accurate and added both positive and negative points about NPs. We absolutely do have a lack of standardized education, we are practicing medicine and although I fought for independent rights with the current state of NP education I have to wonder if being supervised, legitimately supervised, by physicians might actually be appropriate.

We have pushed for more and reduced our admission requirements. My guess is the public will become more well educated as to our backgrounds going forward as they should be imo.

allnurses Guide · Jul 11, 2017

To be completely honest, the little anecdote sounded entirely fictitious like those made-up patients that drug reps use to try and sell you their drug.

I love the comments from "doctors" that wouldn't even use their real names. It's just poor journalism.

elkpark · Jul 11, 2017

That's... the entire article. Anonymous anecdotes from physicians disparaging NPs. I honestly don't see how you can't call it antagonistic. It doesn't cast NPs in a positive light, rather, it's quite negative and actively opposed to NP practice without direct physician supervision - in other words, antagonistic. The purpose of the article is to make NPs look incompetent.

Actually, that's not the entire article. There are some anecdotes from physicians about NPs who missed diagnoses, and physician concerns about the caliber of NP education (concerns that are shared by plenty of people on this site). There are some quotes from some physicians who talk about appreciating and trusting the NPs with whom they work directly, but being uncomfortable with NPs they don't know. There are some anecdotes about NPs helping people who had had bad experiences with physicians. The author refers to NPs as "highly qualified" and mentions that "that studies have shown there is no significant difference in outcomes between patients who are seen by nurse practitioners and those who are seen by medical doctors." The article talks about how NPs are being increasingly utilized by a wide range of healthcare facilities and organizations. There is a wide range of perspectives and opinions presented in the article, in my view (although I would question where the author got her info that "nurse practitioners go through only six to eight years of training on average" ...) Perhaps you are too focused on the (entirely predictable) negative comments from MDs.

allnurses Guide · Jul 11, 2017

The author refers to NPs as "highly qualified" and mentions that "that studies have shown there is no significant difference in outcomes between patients who are seen by nurse practitioners and those who are seen by medical doctors."

The author actually doesn't state that directly in either case. "Highly trained to treat certain medical conditions" and "nurse practitioners counter that studies have shown..". Semantics, but perhaps important semantics. Throughout the article there are some interesting word choices and I think that's what makes me feel while reading that the article has a serious slant.

I do think it is interesting that the physicians they spoke with weren't willing to put their names on their comments, all the NPs seemed to be happy to do that.

Dodongo, APRN, NP · Jul 11, 2017

Beat me to it BostonFNP. The phrasing and word choice give this an obvious (at least to me) negative connotation.

It's not good journalism by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a qualm with NP practice give solid facts. Not anonymous anecdotes that may or may not even be true.

I'm not saying these feelings are entirely misplaced either. I have a huge problem with some NP programs and perhaps the direction of NP education altogether. I am incredulous at completely online programs. And every program should have a dedicated anatomy class. And 3x the amount of required clinical hours. But articles like this encourage unwarranted (at least at this point in time) fear mongering and potentially jeopardizes NP practice. State BONs need to regulate NP educational processes, absolutely, and sooner rather than later. Articles like this, however, go beyond highlighting that need.

KatieMI, BSN, MSN, RN · Jul 11, 2017

- an NP "announces being a doctor"?

- all NPs are doctorate prepared?

- MRI found paraparesis being result a "side effect of medication"?? Gosh, I am burning of curiosity - what that might be? Easily reversible human model of MS? That's would be next Nobel prize in medicine, no doubts!

- an NP saying that "there is no point of seeing a doctor"?

- a person with M.D. goes for her gut feelings instead of dusting off her memory? Especially pathologist?? (these guys know patho better than most of other doctors, put together)

Old USMLE/floor mnemonic: Old Parkins' got paresis >> first look for sumethin' else's!

(new paresis in patient with Parkinson = stroke being #1 differential; and, yeah, patients with Parkinson are in the right age category for strokes of all kind, medulloblastomas, MS, DM complications, bleeds if they are anticoagulated, etc., etc.)

As one of my former professor said, telling believable lies takes more knowledge than telling the truth. The whole thing is nothing else than a rudely made up compilation of mistakes and lies, written to scare off patients. That's why, I suspect, doctors in question were so unusually shy in revealing their names - for doctors with such names do not exist in the great state of Texas as well as anywhere else, and anyone with Internet access might find it out. Although, if every minute of good laugh adds five minutes to total life time, then thank you very much - I'm going to live half an hour longer :roflmao:

elkpark · Jul 11, 2017

The author actually doesn't state that directly in either case. "Highly trained to treat certain medical conditions" and "nurse practitioners counter that studies have shown..". Semantics, but perhaps important semantics. Throughout the article there are some interesting word choices and I think that's what makes me feel while reading that the article has a serious slant.
I do think it is interesting that the physicians they spoke with weren't willing to put their names on their comments, all the NPs seemed to be happy to do that.

I agree with you about your second point, but, to me, meh. The ones who didn't want to be identified said that it was because they were afraid of getting in trouble with their employers. I can see that as a concern.

"It is only when Livy catches sight of the name tag pinned to the white coat and sees the letters APRN, short for Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, that she realizes her mother is being treated by a nurse practitioner â€” a highly qualified nurse who is trained to treat certain medical conditions ..." The author does refer to NPs as "highly qualified," and, yes, says that the NPs referred to studies that have shown similar outcomes -- but the author doesn't dispute the NP's statement about that, or, in my reading, suggest that there is a problem with the studies.

But, to each her or his own. I have no dog in this fight (perhaps that's why I don't find the article as slanted as some others do).

allnurses Guide · Jul 11, 2017

Not an NP yet, but I didn't find the article at all antagonistic. I think it addressed the very real fears and concerns that people have when they find out that the practitioner they are seeing is not a physician. A whole lot would have been solved had the NP in question had the people skills to actually talk to the daughter and hear what she was saying. Even if the physician was not on-site that day a follow-up appointment could have been arranged. It might have made a difference in the person's peace of mind. Even the best trained doctor could have missed this but I believe if the scenario unfolded as described the NP was dismissive and disrespectful.

We as nurses especially those of us going into advanced practice need to remember that ours is a caring profession and where families are involved we are often dealing with more than one patient.

Am I the only one who remembers "The family is also your patient!"

Just my thoughts on the matter

Hppy