jilljw

Sorry, to confuse you. I was just meaning to compare the entry level IPAP to Vanderbilt.

The tissue labs on civilian side do not have the financial means to support a live tissue lab for trauma. Sure they might do one every now and then, but you are not doing annual training. That would cost way too much. You need a barn with animals or procure them. Vets are suppose to be on site. I am not talking about an animal under anesthetics. Like porcine labs, which still cost a lot of money. I am talking about animals that are fully awake. You induce mass trauma and then manage it. I doubt there are many schools that do that.

They also solo in Washington state. My husband has done it as a side job at rural ER. Yes, they need to be able to reach a SP by phone. So do NP's. Additionally, compare Vanderbilts FNP/ACNP to say my husbands basic MPAS (IPAP). They do much more ER training. Additionally, you cannot compare any NP program to his additional Baylor US Army ER DSc program. They are not the same caliber.

Just stating that the educations are not the same. Psych NP is going to get more training than a PA is in psych. Most PA's get way more training in ER than NP. Of course, we all need more training after school. That is why MD/DO has residency. He didn't solo an ER until after 6 yrs. of practice. I am not making this an NP vs PA thing. Just stating there are differences in the education. To assume they are the same is not true. ** side note- I doubt civilian courses have same level trauma courses as military. Live tissue labs. They cannot afford it!

I agree that PA's get less psych rotations than an NP going into psych. However, NPs likely do not get even close to the amount of ER time that a PA gets, both didactically and clinically. My husband had to do 200 hours of ER pt. time outside of a 8 week ER rotation in PA school. This was time spent on weekends and at night outside his other rotations. He also has countless trauma courses he has completed in the military. On top of that he did a 18 month DsC in Emergency medicine. Not too many NP's I know with that experience.

Logically, yes for the layman. This probably depends on the rigor of the program you went through to achieve your ANP. I know my stethoscope skills did not lend a huge helping hand. This can be taught to someone with no experience in little time. Most of the skills used at the RN level didn't provide much of a benefit to me. In fact, those who graduated top of our ANP class were not the ones with the most RN experience. Kind of telling that study is.

If the DNP could pass all the USMLE Steps and oral boards. With additional residency time. I would welcome them to be called DNP in clinic. Not doctor. It is deceiving your patients who are not educated on the difference. After all we are there to serve their best interest not our own. I feel that those who call themselves "doctor" in a clinical setting have buyers remorse. This is too bad. I am happy being an ANP and fitting into the medicine model. We fill an important role. Having a DNP or PhD is a personal achievement. You should not have to feel like you are less of a practitioner by not carrying the title. My husband got his DsC of Emergency Medicine through the Army's Baylor program. He would never think of being called doctor in a clinical setting. He goes by his first name. That is it. His terminal degree is a personal achievement and more importantly gave him more practical skills he can use to benefit patients. Why not be proud of our profession as an ANP?

yes, but it is not the usmle i & ii. those are the weed out exams.

I could explain the difference, but if you don't understand the difference. Then you need to take a serious look at your education and maybe brush up.

Yes, two different professions, yet both practice medicine. So what is the difference? Schooling and training. We both Dx and Tx. We are not so different in our day-to-day jobs in family practice. Just in training and schooling.

I agree that over time you can find doctors, NP or PA's that are better or worse compared to their counterparts. However, I am talking about the school and what prepares you the best. During the first 1-5 years are when most mistakes occur. MD/DO are far superior compared to NP/PA. Hands down. I would say my husband PA school did a much better job compared to my brick and mortar NP school. This is my experience.

Yes, anyone with a brain is a psych pt., just like anyone with a heart is a cardiac pt., etc. Still completely different. Completely!

You can also Monday morning quarterback NFL games all day long. It still does not properly prepare you to get on the field and play the actual role.

Then take the USMLE I & II. Pass the medical boards. Then you will prove that your education is substantial enough not to be labeled a mid-level provider. You are a health care provider. A medical practitioner. We are not MD/DO, to raise yourself to this level is a hoax. Don't confuse reality with political antics. Our profession has a very strong union lobby that affords us many very cushy rights. It sounds like buyers remorse. I like being a mid-level and understand our importance in the healthcare profession. In addition, I understand our limitations. Medical school is still available to anyone who qualifies and is willing to commit to the social and financial sacrifices.

Learning is not just learning. Otherwise, why would we not put a time threshold on having enough hce and let someone sit for a national exam. Then let them Dx, Tx, Rx, etc. It is not to the same level. Dx the easy stuff, yes, not a problem with enough exposure. My mom can probably Dx some of the easy stuff. The issue comes into play with the "zebra conditions". Understanding how to Dx these uncommon conditions is what differentiates providers. It takes repetitive experience in a provider setting. You also have to be able to understand the "science" pathophysiology, so you can provide the optimal Tx for the different types of diseases. These things are not taught in nursing school. I have been working in a hospital for 12 years and have never seen a doctor/pa/np explain this stuff to a nurse w/o dumbing it down to a pt. level. I do understand what he is saying. Just totally disagree. Being a nurse is so far away from being a midlevel and I won't even put a MD/DO in this category, because their experience and education so much more advanced. It is like saying that since I took several high school calculus classes it would qualify me to teach it. I have been exposed to teachers and saw how they explained things. Why go to college and get a teaching credential with a math degree? Would you entrust your child's education to a school full of non-post high school educated teachers? Maybe they had to retake a few grades and had more observational exposure to teaching. In fact maybe they were a teacher's aide. I feel that OJT in non-provider positions such as a medic, RN or anything else is not the same as being an actual provider. These are two very different things.