Family Medicine Shows it's backbone

[Frozen]

AAFP is pushing back against NPs, IOM (well, pending study outcomes)

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/...ow/2010cod-assembly/20100930codnurseprac.html

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/...essional-issues/20101006iomnursingreport.html



Cheers
Frozen

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smq123]

Moved to TIH.

 

[PICUPNP]

They're not pushing anything back. They're just funding a study to compare NPs and FM docs. Why is everyone so bent on creating drama?

 

[Denatured]

"Delegate Jack Chou, M.D., president of the California AFP, cautioned that such a study could produce results that members might not like, but alternate delegate William Thrift, M.D., of Prescott Ariz., said such research was necessary."

I like what Chou has to say. He admits that there is a possibility this will be bad for MDs. NPs should be equally worried that this does not come out in there favor.

 

[DoctwoB]

While I trust the AAFP to develop a less biased study than the nursing associations, I fear that this is a no win situation. If it shows that FPs are 1000x better than NPs, everyone will shout BIAS! THEY FUNDED THE STUDY!! whether it is true or not. If the study shows that NPs offer equivalent care in any circumstance, then it will be said that even the AAFP believes nurses are just as good.

Are there any independent organizations willing to fund said research without being susceptible to political lobbying? My guess is no.

 

[JaggerPlate]

While I trust the AAFP to develop a less biased study than the nursing associations, I fear that this is a no win situation. If it shows that FPs are 1000x better than NPs, everyone will shout BIAS! THEY FUNDED THE STUDY!! whether it is true or not. If the study shows that NPs offer equivalent care in any circumstance, then it will be said that even the AAFP believes nurses are just as good.

Are there any independent organizations willing to fund said research without being susceptible to political lobbying? My guess is no.

I agree, but this argument had way more validity 6 months ago before the ANA (err whatever) started doing numerous studies that were not only horrendously biased, worthless, etc, but were also picked up and relayed through news outlets. I'm not advocating physicians start slinging mud, but it can't hurt to investigate the issue and at least get some sort of a rebuttal to the news agencies/general public that essentially just want headlines/quick answers - ie: 'study proves FPs >>> DNPs.' Joe the plumber is going to hear this on Fox News and forge an opinion ... I highly doubt he'll search for bias in the study.

 

[DoctwoB]

I agree, but this argument had way more validity 6 months ago before the ANA (err whatever) started doing numerous studies that were not only horrendously biased, worthless, etc, but were also picked up and relayed through news outlets. I'm not advocating physicians start slinging mud, but it can't hurt to investigate the issue and at least get some sort of a rebuttal to the news agencies/general public that essentially just want headlines/quick answers - ie: 'study proves FPs >>> DNPs.' Joe the plumber is going to hear this on Fox News and forge an opinion ... I highly doubt he'll search for bias in the study.

I suppose thats true. Better to have a contested study saying physicians>NPs than no study at all. Especially as whoever is on the losing side of the study comes across as whiny and self-interested when trying to explain how the study is flawed.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I suppose thats true. Better to have a contested study saying physicians>NPs than no study at all. Especially as whoever is on the losing side of the study comes across as whiny and self-interested when trying to explain how the study is flawed.

Yeah, I feel like 6 months to a year ago, physicians were above having to prove themselves as superior. However, I can't even count the number of studies, campaigns, etc, launched by the ANA that are really catching the public's attention ... and it's probably time for a rebuttal.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

No study will be put out that'll satisfy everyone. Not only that, they won't be able to truly measure differential outcomes between NPs/DNPs and physicians. Which IRB do you think is going to give approval for patients to be randomized into the midlevel arm without physician back-up? Even if an IRB gives approval, where will you find patients who'll agree to the randomization after you tell them NPs/DNPs have less than 10% of the training physicians have?

In my opinion, and what I plan on doing in the future (well first, I need to get into med school), is to support PAs and only hire PAs while shunning NPs/DNPs. I think physicians, as a whole, should start moving towards supporting PAs, AAs, etc, over their nursing counterparts. As the economy worsens for nursing midlevels then, the only outcome will be that NPs/DNPs/CRNAs/CNMs/etc will become less attractive career options.

 

[deleted6669]

No study will be put out that'll satisfy everyone. Not only that, they won't be able to truly measure differential outcomes between NPs/DNPs and physicians. Which IRB do you think is going to give approval for patients to be randomized into the midlevel arm without physician back-up? Even if an IRB gives approval, where will you find patients who'll agree to the randomization after you tell them NPs/DNPs have less than 10% of the training physicians have?

.

You could use an hmo setting and do a retrospective study design. places like kaiser already use unsupervised np's and physicians interchangeably for internal medicine and pediatrics without regard to severity of complaint. you would have to pick a group of diagnoses ("all patients 40-70 with an admission dx of chf" for example) to make for a valid comparison.