Articles like this that anger CRNAs

Published

Ok

So in a quest to learn more about my future profession, ive been doing alot of research.

http://nursing.fiu.edu/anesthesiology/COURSES/Semester%203/NGR%206760%20ANE%20Prof%20Aspects/PROF%20Readings/Abenstein.pdf

This appears to be exactly the type of article that creates division and anger in the CRNA/MDA relationship. Written by MDAs, this article does an excellent job of taking limited stats, non-statistical signifigant numbers with low N and p values, and weaving it into a "MDAs look better" proposition. They say it over and over again then add reality here and there with "but the numbers are not statistically signifigant" and " a true cross section study with N values large enough to make valid claims would be "costly and possibly unethical"". Essentially, what i see is this: We know the numbers wont bear out our claims if we do large numbers, so why not make unscientific infrences from the weak N values we have to lobby politically.

How frustrating.

I like reading articles like this. I am not sure why one profession knocks or puts down others. Well, ok turf has a lot to do with it but none the less it still drives me crazy. From my point of view, where I have slowly grown up through the ranks I have seen it from all angles.

I guess professionally it is something that you have to deal with.

Is there that much animosity between MDs and CRNAs? How are CRNA perceived by other nurses?

Specializes in ICU, Surgery.

I am an "other nurse". I work in surgery as a holding area nurse and/or circulator. The CRNA's in the group here are awesome! They are so helpful to the circulators and very willing to teach. If I can't get an IV (and we all use local for anything bigger than a 20, btw!) it's the CRNA's I go looking for, for assistance. Not only will they start it, they will give me hints as to why they are using a particular site. (MD's usually say, "Well who's patient is it? They will be free soon."

+ Join the Discussion