Broadening the Scope of Nursing Practice (NEJM)

Started by cbrons
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
cbrons

cbrons

Full Member
Verified Member
Physician
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
If you have NEJM: This Week on your iPad/iPhone you might have seen the article entitled, Broadening the Scope of Nursing Practice.

Excerpt:

Evidence from many studies indicates that primary care services, such as wellness and prevention services, diagnosis and management of many common uncomplicated acute illnesses, and management of chronic diseases such as diabetes can be provided by nurse practitioners at least as safely and effectively as by physicians.1 After reviewing the issue, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel recently reiterated this conclusion and called for expansion of nurses' scope of practice in primary care.2
Click to expand...
Link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1012121



Notes for the TIHC forum:

Question 1: What are your thoughts?
Question 2: Is this the inevitable future?
Question 3: Where is Taurus? DbDan (who found this) didn't scoop him did he? 🙂
 
Last edited:
Well I'm glad I got straightened out. Here I was thinking the whole point of having highly educated medical practitioners is to catch the complicated diseases that present uncommonly and thereby catch diseases before they become a much more serious problem.

In the future I'll just call my grandmother for medical advice.

On a serious note this is a war that is going to be fought in the realm of public opinion. The economics of the situation are pretty clear. It's part of the consequences of having the system set up the way we do, as opposed to other countries which do not have that many obstacles to becoming a physician. By having more expensive medical care you end up inadvertently making medical care more expensive by treating more advanced disease. People don't like going to doctors when they have to wait weeks to make an appointment, hours at the office, fifteen short minutes with an irritated GP and have to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It seems to me that this is inevitable with the current system of primary care that we have. Primary Care physicians aren't really allowed to do everything their training enables them to do, so all too often they are referring to specialists cases which they could handle themselves.

I would personally like to see a strengthening of primary care, with better reimbursement relative to specialists but also, and perhaps more importantly, more responsibility.
 
That's fine, if they think NP=MD, they should give everyone who's about to get Obamacare access to NPs only. Stock them in the ED, the office, and why not even the OR.

We'll see how equal they are.
 
Kudos to the AOA, AMA, AAFP (and whoever else) for writing that rebuttal letter. However, I'm really sick of this bull**** propagating into respectable sources - the IOM and now the NEJM?

Make no mistake, the militant DNPs have made this into a war on many fronts, and we need to fight it on the PR level, in the hospitals themselves, and by rejecting these providers in the field. It's about patient clarity/safety, and we're all well aware that these laughable studies are flawed to the point where conclusions regarding this important aspect are inconclusive at best and dangerous at worse.
 
Lokhtar said:
It seems to me that this is inevitable with the current system of primary care that we have. Primary Care physicians aren't really allowed to do everything their training enables them to do, so all too often they are referring to specialists cases which they could handle themselves.

I would personally like to see a strengthening of primary care, with better reimbursement relative to specialists but also, and perhaps more importantly, more responsibility.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The key point in this whole exchange is the fact that the system is far too specialist heavy, which inevitably drives up cost without there being a proportional improvement in outcome. It's painfully obvious that there are a glut of things currently in primary care that can very easily be performed by nurse practitioners without a noticeable drop off in quality of delivery or outcomes. In all honesty, it's pretty myopic for family practitioners to resist "encroachment" of NPs, when such a trend can allow for them to take on more of the responsibility that is currently being transferred to the specialists. In essence, broadening the scope of NP would inevitably lead to a corresponding broadening of the scope of family medicine - since FM is in a unique position of controlling patient flow.
 
cbrons said:
Sad that this got moved out of the allo forum, there are not as many responses as I had hoped.
Click to expand...

That means we can't say what we really feel about the issue...or we'll keep lambasted by other groups :laugh:

This paper is a joke and DNP =/= MD



/RUN AWAAAAAAAAAY
 
bronx43 said:
Bingo. The key point in this whole exchange is the fact that the system is far too specialist heavy, which inevitably drives up cost without there being a proportional improvement in outcome. It's painfully obvious that there are a glut of things currently in primary care that can very easily be performed by nurse practitioners without a noticeable drop off in quality of delivery or outcomes. In all honesty, it's pretty myopic for family practitioners to resist "encroachment" of NPs, when such a trend can allow for them to take on more of the responsibility that is currently being transferred to the specialists. In essence, broadening the scope of NP would inevitably lead to a corresponding broadening of the scope of family medicine - since FM is in a unique position of controlling patient flow.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the DNPs have absolutely 0 interest in stopping at FP, nor do they believe their knowledge should limit them to the 'routine.' If you need any proof, look at the DNP 'residency' programs in fields like dermatology. Look at the number of DNP/NPs pushing for more involvement in cardiology, critical care, etc. It's not myopic for FPs (or all physicians for that matter) to stop NP encroachment into primary care because they have no interest in staying in PC fields, nor is ANY specialty field safe from encroachment (unless the trend is stopped NOW).

Even if you believe that they can handle a majority of the 'horseys,' their advancement into primary care is a facade that enables them to get a foot in the door and use it as a springboard into the better paying, more specialized areas of medicine. Truthfully, I don't think detecting skin cancers in dermatology or handling complex cases in anesthesiology is anything routine, but it's where the NPs are headed (or are already at) as we speak. If PC providers really want someone to handle the routine while they focus on more difficult cases or areas of the practice that could really increase 'specialized' type reimbursement, hire a PA. These individuals are far better trained and aren't looking to practice medicine without a license and endanger patients.
 
JaggerPlate said:
The problem is that the DNPs have absolutely 0 interest in stopping at FP, nor do they believe their knowledge should limit them to the 'routine.' If you need any proof, look at the DNP 'residency' programs in fields like dermatology. Look at the number of DNP/NPs pushing for more involvement in cardiology, critical care, etc.
Click to expand...



When you give an inch, you lose a mile. A lot of inches have been given to the nursing lobbies and a lot of miles have been lost as a result.

Now, as to the notion that NPs can substitute physicians in the primary care arena, I disagree. It is erroneous to believe that family medicine physicians are not specialists in their own right. In fact, an argument could be made that it is the most dangerous to cede primary care entirely to nurses because it is at the level of the PCP that key determinations are made in how/whether to treat/transfer a patient.
 
This might sound trite or inconsequential, but I believe that semantics do matter, and a big step that the AMA and physicians can make is to drop the moniker of "Provider", or even "primary care". They are words made up by bureaucrats and do not adequately describe what physicians do. Additionally, by using the word "provider" it opens it up for multiple professions to lay claims to the same name, which lends itself to an equality that may not be merited. It's difficult to have a hierarchy within a word. To many people, a PCP is a PCP regardless of whether it is a family practitioner, an internist, a NP, a naturopath, or a chiropracter. But by embracing the word, we are equating ourselves with these other groups.
Just my two cents.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I like this specifically

Nurses tend
to move from more restrictive to
less restrictive states, and from
primary to specialist care, with
a resulting loss of access to care
for patients.
Click to expand...
So what it boils down to is nurses are not trying to look to fill the primary care gaps that are out there. They want to be specialists just as much as many physicians do, with the pay and responsibility to go with it. These advance practice nurses want to be physicians.
 
engineeredout said:
I like this specifically

So what it boils down to is nurses are not trying to look to fill the primary care gaps that are out there. They want to be specialists just as much as many physicians do, with the pay and responsibility to go with it. These advance practice nurses want to be physicians.
Click to expand...

I think their whole 'filling a crucial primary care gap' lie died for me the day I saw the University of SOUTH FLORIDA 'nursing dermatology residency' with cosmetic components and an accompanying video where 'Dr' Debra Shelby introduced herself as the 'residency director of the dermatology program at USF' and proceeded explaining the program (she's a DNP). To me, this doesn't scream - selfless practitioner who just wants to help those who need it.
 
xanthomondo said:
That's fine, if they think NP=MD, they should give everyone who's about to get Obamacare access to NPs only. Stock them in the ED, the office, and why not even the OR.

We'll see how equal they are.
Click to expand...

WTF does "who's about to get Obamacare" mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SDN Rounds
Scope of Practice
Replies
0
Views
295
SDN Rounds
SDN Rounds
Mr.Smile12
[NEJM] The Debate over Medical School Grading Systems
Replies
0
Views
818
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Other [NEJM] The Power of Physicians in Dangerous Times
Replies
0
Views
682
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
[NEJM Opinion, firewalled] The Health Equity, Medical, and Scientific Costs of Dismantling DEI
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
[NEJM] Who Will Care for America? Immigration Policy and the Coming Health Workforce Crisis
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12