NP Wikipedia Article

Dang!! You're absolutely right. Doing some sleuthing (unless I'm reading the time logs wrong), most of it appears to be from a person calling themselves, "TheGreatWikiLord" in late March 2019. Their occupation is listed as "Master of Chaos." I wonder what their beef is with nurse practitioners...

Hmm...I bet there is a way to revert it back to what it was and appeal to wikipedia. Anyone an author on wikipedia and have done this before?

Can anyone please edit it? Or get it removed or something? I too saw that and was irked because it is "fake news" but alas, it ain't as easy to edit things on Wikipedia anymore and it won't let me.

Is there a link? For some reason, I can't see it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_practitioner

What in the world?

Here is a link for future use to report things like this. https://www.aanp.org/about/about-the-american-association-of-nurse-practitioners-aanp/media/reportnow?fbclid=IwAR0PONDGSsFuF1bO3hwF7sPY5MrlcX1baHhM0esLIhyRhEem1spXKWwOrI4

Is it fake news? Is it inaccurate?

"...it can consist of online coursework with few hours of actual patient contact."

True.

"The number of patient contact hours in nurse practitioner training is less than or equal to 3% of physician training."

True.

"Overall, to become an NP requires 1.5 to 3 years of post-baccalaureate training, compared to physicians who are required to complete a minimum of 7 years of post-baccalaureate training."

True.

"A new nurse practitioner has between 500 and 1,500 hours of clinical training compared with a family physician who would have more 15,000 hours of clinical training by the time certification."

True.

"Many schools have 100% acceptance rates, coursework can be 100% online, and clinical experience is limited to shadowing with no hands-on experience."

True.

16 minutes ago, Dodongo said:

Is it fake news? Is it inaccurate?

"...it can consist of online coursework with few hours of actual patient contact."

True.

"The number of patient contact hours in nurse practitioner training is less than or equal to 3% of physician training."

True.

"Overall, to become an NP requires 1.5 to 3 years of post-baccalaureate training, compared to physicians who are required to complete a minimum of 7 years of post-baccalaureate training."

True.

"A new nurse practitioner has between 500 and 1,500 hours of clinical training compared with a family physician who would have more 15,000 hours of clinical training by the time certification."

True.

"Many schools have 100% acceptance rates, coursework can be 100% online, and clinical experience is limited to shadowing with no hands-on experience."

True.

Never said it was inaccurate in regard to what you just took the time to post, and even mentioned the part about clinical hours and education in my OP as being accurate.

My larger issue is whoever edited it (foreign IP address), especially with regard to quality, presented a very narrow view of references and some of the “citations” are very poor quality. Their wording in general was also poorly done. It also failed to cite the many articles that do exist out there that prove our strengths. The intent was clearly biased in nature.

I'll also add after doing some digging, that it appears since the end of march, an entity has taken over the page, and started making numerous edits, and now the page is semi locked. While some comments are fairly accurate, others are blatantly false or misleading, indeed fake news. Anyone with half a brain can read the edit history, check the IPs, and actually read the references cited and realize this is a hit job. The person editing it apparently knows a great deal about Pakistani cricket and Nurse Practitioners, no other medical articles.

"NP training covers basic disease prevention, coordination of care, and health promotion, but does not provide the depth of expertise needed to recognize more complex cases in which multiple symptoms suggest more serious conditions" which is just blatantly false and cites nothing to back this up

"Increased utilization of nurse practitioners is leading to increased cost of care through increased use of resources and unnecessary referrals". Check the references, they make absolutely no claim that we are leading to increased cost in healthcare and the difference in ordering practices in very small sample settings is 0.1%, not really statistically significant. Considering we bill at 85%, we are cheaper.

"Nurse practitioners are more likely to prescribe antibiotics when they are not indicated". Only assessed providers in ambulatory care and the overall conclusion of the reference was that all providers over-prescribe and the study did not separate NP's or PA's, and even mentions in the studies limitations that the finding might no be representive of NP/PA practice because of the sampling methods used.

"Although a few studies have shown that NPs provide similar quality care when compared physicians, these studies were found to have a medium to high potential for bias and had low to insufficient strength of evidence" This is my favorite as the article referenced so supposedly back this up states explicitly "The studies we reviewed did not demonstrate a difference between APRN care and physician care in primary and urgent care settings with regard to health status, quality of life, mortality, or hospitalizations"

I think we can all agree there are ways to improve our profession and standards of entry, but this article is a biased pile of garbage and I can't believe it's allowed to exist.

1 hour ago, Dodongo said:

"...it can consist of online coursework with few hours of actual patient contact."

True.

"Overall, to become an NP requires 1.5 to 3 years of post-baccalaureate training, compared to physicians who are required to complete a minimum of 7 years of post-baccalaureate training."

True.

"Many schools have 100% acceptance rates, coursework can be 100% online, and clinical experience is limited to shadowing with no hands-on experience."

True.

First point misleading and "few" is perspective.

Point two...a physician is a physician after four years of medical school whether they go for an additional 3 years for residency or not. They can in theory work as one whether they go through residency and board certify or not. It is certainly limiting career wise, but doesn't make them any less awarded that title.

Point three...a few schools have 100% acceptance and their graduation rates don't typically equal the total who start their programs. Suggesting that "many" clinical experiences are limited to a shadowing experience is likely a gross mischaracterization and can't be truly measured unless you can say you honestly personally account for this experience (which means you either benefited from this or contributed to it). It sure as eff wasn't my clinical experience.

I honestly have never met an np with more professional self loathing in my life. How you remain in this field or don't exercise your Superior opinion of yourself and your education to get your MD is beyond me.

23 hours ago, djmatte said:

I honestly have never met an np with more professional self loathing in my life. How you remain in this field or don't exercise your Superior opinion of yourself and your education to get your MD is beyond me.

Oh please. Because I recognize the many shortcomings of our education. The abysmally low standards that the CCNE sets. The absent standards of the ACEN. Because I wish NPs would abandon these accreditation bodies and form their own - unique, dedicated to NP education. With true minimum standards. To elevate the profession. So we don't have to constantly fight ridiculous battles like the one discussed here. So out of the 3 provider level professions we aren't the worst trained.

I guess you are a better advocate of the NP profession than I. Continue to trumpet our education.

Oh by the way, I reported this to the AANP a while ago (even though I hate NPs, and myself...). Here is the response:

"On behalf of AANP president, Dr. Joyce Knestrick, we’d like to thank you for responding to our request for updates on media messaging. We are aware of the misinformation in Wikipedia and are in the process of revising the language to accurately reflect the nurse practitioner role. We appreciate your efforts to help us stay informed of any negative or misleading statements made about nurse practitioners and we urge you to continue to be vigilant about the way NPs are referenced in the media. Please keep this link handy and let us know about any future comments made in a public space that inaccurately define NPs. Patients need to have all the most relevant information when choosing their health care provider and with your help, we can make sure that information provided to the general public is an unbiased and accurate picture of the exceptional care that NPs provide. Please note that anyone can make changes to Wikipedia at any time. So, we need to be prepared to see constant revisions. We will try to update it as often as possible."