Is the AA profession gaining ground?

Specialties CRNA

Published

Another thread peaked my interest on this issue. How fast is the AA profession gaining ground? I thought they were able to practice in only 2 or 3 states last year, but now it sounds like they are able to practice in 16? Will they be able to practice in even more states soon? Comments appreciated

Where did you get the statistic that complications are occuring in 1% of AA cases???? That is an outrageous fabrication. Where is your data to support the notion that the public is at risk?? It is a fact that AAs are as safe as CRNAs. If you read the rest of my post, I said that the brand new AA is a little more closely supervised by the MDA and is doing the more basic cases right at first - no one is at risk and to allege that they are is pure unsubstantiated crapola. They ramp up quickly to being more independant and doing more difficult cases over the first year as they grow more comfortable and experienced.

Also, we don't feel like we lack credibility at all. Amongst those that matter, our patients, the ASA, and the CRNAs that we work with our credibility is fine. It's only the CRNAs that don't know us, or don't want to know us that we lack credibility and to be honest with you - that's more your problem than ours.

I was simply referring to this quote for purposes of the general discussion regarding both AA's and CRNA's.

However, its the 1% of cases that you train for.

And it really doesn't matter how you try to slice it. You can argue until you're blue in the face but, few are going to believe that an AA with no previous critical care experience is going to be as safe as a CRNA who has that previous experience. It defies logic.

As you guys have pointed out, AA's have been kicking around for 30 years yet, there's only 5 schools and 16 states where they can work. Obviously there's a credibility problem, at least to some extent, or you'd be licensed in all 50 states by now and the legislatures wouldn't still be debating this issue 30 years later.

You can try to spin it any way you want but, when all is said and done, more training and experience is better than less ... and AA's have less.

:typing

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I'm with rayman. 3 threads on AAs isn't necessary. At least close 2 of them down.

Oh, I get it. I need to do a thousand cases to realize we have multiple threads about the same discussion. This definitely gets me "know-it-all" status.:lol2:

Just trying to give you the prospect of the original argument RN90210.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
Am I to assume you are referring to me by that statement?

Umm, no. Not at all. I had someone else entirely in mind. Sorry if you thought I was referring to you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Where did you get the statistic that complications are occuring in 1% of AA cases???? That is an outrageous fabrication. Where is your data to support the notion that the public is at risk?? It is a fact that AAs are as safe as CRNAs. If you read the rest of my post, I said that the brand new AA is a little more closely supervised by the MDA and is doing the more basic cases right at first - no one is at risk and to allege that they are is pure unsubstantiated crapola. They ramp up quickly to being more independant and doing more difficult cases over the first year as they grow more comfortable and experienced.

Also, we don't feel like we lack credibility at all. Amongst those that matter, our patients, the ASA, and the CRNAs that we work with our credibility is fine. It's only the CRNAs that don't know us, or don't want to know us that we lack credibility and to be honest with you - that's more your problem than ours.

GeorgiaAA. First off I say this in all due respect. My beef is that the ASA sees CRNAs as an unsafe alternative to an -ologists. If this is true, and we assume a typical AA's belief that an AA is the functional equivalent of a CRNA in an ACT setting, then that would mean AAs are just as unsafe as CRNAs; but for some reason (we all know why) they support your existance. There is never a statement made by the ASA (based on their publication and the APSF's publication) in reference to the safety of using AAs. You have to admit this is kinda off huh?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
My beef is that the ASA sees CRNAs as an unsafe alternative to an -ologists. If this is true, and we assume a typical AA's belief that an AA is the functional equivalent of a CRNA in an ACT setting, then that would mean AAs are just as unsafe as CRNAs; but for some reason (we all know why) they support your existance.

That's an excellent point. It's a hellava contradiction ... isn't it.

:chuckle

Up Vote Up Vote ×

You guys still getting after it. Impressive. Got to many test coming up so Ill have to bow out of this one. You guys are some soldiers.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
GeorgiaAA. First off I say this in all due respect. My beef is that the ASA sees CRNAs as an unsafe alternative to an -ologists. If this is true, and we assume a typical AA's belief that an AA is the functional equivalent of a CRNA in an ACT setting, then that would mean AAs are just as unsafe as CRNAs; but for some reason (we all know why) they support your existance. There is never a statement made by the ASA (based on their publication and the APSF's publication) in reference to the safety of using AAs. You have to admit this is kinda off huh?

WHAT the ... four pages of this thread are devoted to your whining about dead horses and now you have something valuable to add? Apparently, the horse isn't dead. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

And by the way, you did bring up the sevo vs. des question.

I feel you on the boredom. But why beat a dead horse. I'm personally sick of debating this issue. I rather debate on which gas is best for an obese patient. Des or Sevo?
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Wow, that is some great clinical debate.

So you want to discuss whether Sevo or des is better for the obese pt. Okay, you start... ...waiting ...waiting ...oh yea, you would have no idea given the fact that you have NEVER used either one! So much for the discussion.

I guess you don't remember this huh?

The only I could see you thinking this is if your talking about me starting a thread about Dr. Eger and Des. Other than that, I really wondering why you would say I started a debate about des vs. sevo.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
WHAT the ... four pages of this thread are devoted to your whining about dead horses and now you have something valuable to add? Apparently, the horse isn't dead. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

And by the way, you did bring up the sevo vs. des question.

Oh yeah.....:lol2: My bad. You took me literally. I mean lets talk about something that can help me out when I start clincals in august. That's what I want to see on this board. The AA debate is important yes...we just don't need 18 threads on the first page about it. That's all I'm saying

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Sigma, you are killing me dude.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Sigma, you are killing me dude.

Hey man. I can't remember everything I type. My bad. I got lungs on the brain. My fault man.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
GeorgiaAA. First off I say this in all due respect. My beef is that the ASA sees CRNAs as an unsafe alternative to an -ologists. If this is true, and we assume a typical AA's belief that an AA is the functional equivalent of a CRNA in an ACT setting, then that would mean AAs are just as unsafe as CRNAs; but for some reason (we all know why) they support your existance. There is never a statement made by the ASA (based on their publication and the APSF's publication) in reference to the safety of using AAs. You have to admit this is kinda off huh?

They support the existence of AAs b/c they are not in competition with them. They will always be in the ACT model. The ASA doesn't expect AAs to become solo practioners like CRNAs. If that were to occurr, I'm sure the AAs would start getting the same treatment we do. The ASA believes CRNAs are safe practioners but only in the team setting.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment