- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,180
- Reaction score
- 16
I feel so sorry for my cohorts. NANDA is such a waste of time.
It does keep professors employed.
I feel so sorry for my cohorts. NANDA is such a waste of time.
It does keep professors employed.
Quoted from Taurus:
Clinical training hrs
DNP: 700 (offered online )
PA: 2400
MD/DO: >17000
50% failed simplified Step 3
Yet, DNP's want to be called 'Dr', independent everywhere (outpt, inpt, ER), be equivalent to PCP's & have full hospital privileges
DNP residencies New!
Pearson report
Future of medicine?
1) Do true NP outcome studies
2) Pass institutional policies restricting 'Dr' title
3) Hire PA's & AA's not DNP's or CRNA's
We already discussed a lot of these issues on other threads you are just now mentioning (i.e. DNP residencies, clinical hours ect.).
I am not even going to comment on all of this.
I feel so sorry for my cohorts. NANDA is such a waste of time.
The pushback is making progress. Let me preemptively answer the one question that all DNP's are dying to ask. No, DNP's are not considered "physicians" and won't be able to use that title. "Physician", like "registered nurse", is a protected title and codified in state law. Specifically, state laws mandate that the board of medicine regulate "physicians". Unless DNP's want to be regulated by board of medicine, you'll be using the "nurse practitioner" or "midlevel" title.
New Pennsylvania law requires physicians to wear photo IDs
States are working to guarantee that patients know whom they are seeing and are not deceived by health professionals who misrepresent their training.
By Carolyne Krupa, amednews staff. Posted Dec. 20, 2010.
A new Pennsylvania law aims to make it clear for patients who is taking their blood pressure, giving them an injection or preparing to operate on a loved one.
Under the law signed Nov. 23 by Gov. Edward Rendell, physicians, nurses and other health care professionals soon will be required to wear photo identification badges that state their credentials in large block letters, with descriptions such as "physician" or "registered nurse."
"The idea is that you can read this instantly at a conversational distance," said John J. Laskas Jr., MD, a dermatologist in Glen Mills, Pa., and chair of the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery's patient safety and scope of practice committee. "Then the patient knows and can make a judgment whether or not this is the level of expertise they need. We need to know and have a right to know the credentials of the person who is giving us care."
Beginning in January 2011, the state health department will have 90 days to develop interim regulations and then 18 months to finalize them. All Pennsylvania health care employers will need to comply by June 2015.
The Pennsylvania law is one example of how states are working to ensure that patients know whom they are seeing and are not misled by health professionals who misrepresent their level of training. At least two states -- California and Arizona -- have enacted laws requiring that any advertisements for medical services include the health professional's title and license type.
Illinois adopted its Truth in Health Care Professional Services Act in July, requiring health professionals to post their license when seeing patients in their office. They also must wear a visible badge stating their license credentials during all patient encounters.
Disclosing who the doctor is
The American Medical Association's Truth in Advertising campaign is designed to increase clarity and transparency in health care. The initiative encourages all states to enact laws mandating that all health care professionals disclose their training and qualifications.
Model legislation drafted by the AMA would require practitioners to identify their license type in advertisements, wear a clearly visible photo ID badge when seeing patients and post their type of license in their offices. The AMA further recommends that the rules apply in any practice setting, and that physicians who have collaborative agreements with nonphysicians post in each office a schedule of regular hours when they will be there.
At least 2 states require that medical ads include a health professional's title and license type.
"Research shows that patients can easily mistake the qualifications of health care professionals and often believe they are seeing a medical doctor when they are not," said Rebecca J. Patchin, MD, immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees.
Ninety-six percent of U.S. adults believe that health care professionals should display both their level of training and their legal licensure, according to an AMA survey done in 2008 of 852 adults nationwide.
Pennsylvania's legislation is an issue of full disclosure and patient safety, said Bruce Brod, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
"When you're a patient, you're in a very vulnerable position," said Dr. Brod, chair of the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery's political advocacy committee. "A lot of patients feel timid about asking the person [for] their credentials. They are concerned the person will take it as an insult or that it will affect the care they receive."
Lead bill sponsor Pennsylvania State Rep. Jennifer Mann was inspired to pursue the measure after visiting with a senior citizen constituent. The woman complained that while her cable man wore a photo ID when he came to her house, the people hired to provide her home health care had no such identification.
The woman was concerned about letting strangers into her home to provide sometimes-intimate health services when she did not know if they were who they claimed to be, said Mann's chief of staff, Rich Pronesti.
Dr. Laskas said he pushed for the legislation after seeing a resident and medical student from an area children's hospital with badges displaying their titles in big, bold letters.
"The problem is that since physicians don't necessarily wear their white coats and nurses don't necessarily wear their caps anymore, the patients can't really tell who is taking care of them," he said.
Though many hospitals in the state require name tags, they are often hard to read, with small lettering and abbreviations for degrees that some patients can't decipher, said Scot Chadwick, vice president for governmental affairs for the Pennsylvania Medical Society. "The genesis of it has been the increase in doctorates being offered and obtained by nonphysician health care providers who use the term 'doctor' in referring to themselves," he said. "That has led to a growing concern about possible patient confusion."
Dr. Brod has received inquiries from physicians across the country who are interested in supporting similar legislation. "We're hoping that this serves as a bellwether for other states," he said.
Like this is revolutionary? My badge has been like that for years. Of course, I live in PA, so maybe we're just ahead of the times.
Like this is revolutionary? My badge has been like that for years. Of course, I live in PA, so maybe we're just ahead of the times.
No, it's not revolutionary. It's standardizing.
Hopefully, these laws will mandate that every healthcare worker in every clinical setting and not just in the big city hospitals will easily be identified by patients. Even the smallest clinic in the smallest town will be under the same requirements. The long white coat and the nursing uniform once was used to identify physician from nurses. Now that line has been blurred. This is meant to bring back something that can be used to differentiate different healthcare workers.
I don't see how NP's can argue against this policy. If they fight it, it just exposes their ulterior motives to the lawmakers and public, which is simply scope expansion. It's a very clever move imho.
I don't work in a big-city hospital. The last two hospitals I've worked for were in small towns. Like I said, maybe we just have our act together here.
Haven't you heard of facilities that use color coded uniforms to differentiate one type of health care worker from another? Mine does that too. (Gasp.)
No, it's not revolutionary. It's standardizing.
Hopefully, these laws will mandate that every healthcare worker in every clinical setting and not just in the big city hospitals will easily be identified by patients. Even the smallest clinic in the smallest town will be under the same requirements. The long white coat and the nursing uniform once was used to identify physician from nurses. Now that line has been blurred. This is meant to bring back something that can be used to differentiate different healthcare workers.
I don't see how NP's can argue against this policy. If they fight it, it just exposes their ulterior motives to the lawmakers and public, which is simply scope expansion. It's a very clever move imho.
It's not just the hospital setting. Every clinical setting, including outpatient clinics, minute clinics, etc. Every time the patient sees an NP in any clinic, they will see in clear bold letters that they're not being seen by a physician. No longer do patients have to wonder what's the title of that person in a long white coat and introducing themselves as "Dr." That's the key part of the law.
I agree with most people that physicians don't own the title of "Dr." Most lay people would agree however that it is purposely confusing and even deceitful to patients to walk around in a long white coat and introduce yourself as "Dr." in a clinical setting when you're a non-physician. The public and media strongly equates "Dr" with physician and everyone knows this. Non-physicians who do that are just trying to stroke their egos and have an inferiority complex because they know they didn't go to medical school. While physicians may not exclusively own the "Dr." title, they do own the "physician" title and that is protected. I don't think the significance of this law can be stressed enough.
I don't necessarily have a problem if patients have a preference to see NP's. That's their choice. But what I do have a problem is deception. Patients should have all of the information and then be allowed to make an informed decision. However, surveys and anecdotes repeatedly show that the vast majority of patients want to be seen by physicians because they want someone who has the highest training and experience to handle their health needs. This is especially true if your co-pay or medical bill is the same whether you're seen by an NP or physician. It would be like paying $500/hour expecting the services of an experienced lawyer and getting a paralegal instead. I would feel like I got ripped off!!!
I don't work in a big-city hospital. The last two hospitals I've worked for were in small towns. Like I said, maybe we just have our act together here.
Haven't you heard of facilities that use color coded uniforms to differentiate one type of health care worker from another? Mine does that too. (Gasp.)
In my entire career I've never seen any clinical setting where HR didn't slap a badge on you.
Agreed and this is pretty much the standard where I live in the hospital setting. However, I do see a potential problem at private practices. Unfortunately, many providers (Physicians Included) do not wear identification in this environment. I agree that we should apply this standard to every clinical setting.
Regardless of semantics, I feel as though it's pretty much an axiom at this point regarding the "doctor" title being used in a clinical setting. People almost universally associate the term "doctor" with a physician in the clinical setting. Clearly, only certain providers should use this term.
I think the argument is the size of the part that tells what your job is. At my job, each badge says that but if you don't know what to look for it can be hard to find.
Yea, that seems to be how most badges are. However, at the fairly large hospital I used to volunteer/shadow at, it was incredibly hard to distinguish who was an MD/DO, RN, NP, PA, etc. They all had badges similar to your example but, like VA said, unless you know where to look, it was near impossible to figure out what each person's role was. Even after months of volunteering, it was hard figuring out who was who. The pictures posted in Taurus' post seem to be infinitely better than what I'm used to seeing. Just my $0.02.I am not skilled enough to reproduce my actual badge, but it goes something like this:
(mug shot)
fab4fan
RN
FAB4FAN DOE RN,***
Agreed and this is pretty much the standard where I live in the hospital setting. However, I do see a potential problem at private practices. Unfortunately, many providers (Physicians Included) do not wear identification in this environment. I agree that we should apply this standard to every clinical setting.
Regardless of semantics, I feel as though it's pretty much an axiom at this point regarding the "doctor" title being used in a clinical setting. People almost universally associate the term "doctor" with a physician in the clinical setting. Clearly, only certain providers should use this term.
Are you saying we should wear ID badges in private practice? If so, I disagree as clients know who they are making an appointment with. And I'm certainly not wearing a badge when I accompany clients into the jungle. Forget it!
You have to, how else will the tigers know who not to eat
You have to, how else will the tigers know who not to eat
And doctors should not be calling their secretaries/medical assistants "nurses."
See how it works both ways, Taurus?
Do I need to repost my avatar of me and the tiger?
I like the uniform idea. Not because I don't want my patients confused (I could care less), but because I don't like being confused. If I see black scrubs, I know that's RT. Red scrubs, ED. Happy looking scrubs, peds.
I was making a reference to that tiger picture re: I thought it was pretty cool
Yeah, I agree. Keep it real throughout. I have nothing against medical assistants and so on; however, let's be honest about identifying who is taking care of you.
More needless deaths due to NP's.
Surprise, surprise. A lawsuit.
Four plaintiffs accuse Vancouver pain clinic of medical malpractice, alleging 'excessive amounts' of opiates prescribed
Derm problem:
FP physician visit x 2: results
Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit:
Surprise, surprise, surprise
Derm problem:
FP physician visit x 2: results
Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit:
Surprise, surprise, surprise
Derm problem:
FP physician visit x 2: results
Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit:
Surprise, surprise, surprise
I love anecdotes. I hear you man, evidence/factual data is totally boringg
No surprise. It's always easier to be right when you're the second (or third, or fourth...) person seeing the patient.
I see that there is a lot of SAD (statistical alchemy dependence) going around. Why don't you send me the emails of your professors so I can tell them my opinion of what's being unleased on the public today.
If you don't like anecdotes, then tell Taurus to quit posting.
I saw a patient today that was pissed because his doctor told him nothing was wrong with his neck after an injury. He could have been lying about the numbness, tingling and weakness in his arm but I don't think he was lying about the words that came out of his mouth when I pressed on the top of his head. Just another anecdote, right?
Unlike you, I don't suffer from SAD. I actually listen to my patient's stories because their story is very important to them. Unfortunately for you, there will probably be few healing stories. SAD, really SAD!
All you need is one good patient to teach you what you need to know. I hope you run across them soon.
Maybe if you put enough anecdotes in a group, you'll have something....
It's not just the hospital setting. Every clinical setting, including outpatient clinics, minute clinics, etc. Every time the patient sees an NP in any clinic, they will see in clear bold letters that they're not being seen by a physician. No longer do patients have to wonder what's the title of that person in a long white coat and introducing themselves as "Dr." That's the key part of the law.
I agree with most people that physicians don't own the title of "Dr." Most lay people would agree however that it is purposely confusing and even deceitful to patients to walk around in a long white coat and introduce yourself as "Dr." in a clinical setting when you're a non-physician. The public and media strongly equates "Dr" with physician and everyone knows this. Non-physicians who do that are just trying to stroke their egos and have an inferiority complex because they know they didn't go to medical school. While physicians may not exclusively own the "Dr." title, they do own the "physician" title and that is protected. I don't think the significance of this law can be stressed enough.
I don't necessarily have a problem if patients have a preference to see NP's. That's their choice. But what I do have a problem is deception. Patients should have all of the information and then be allowed to make an informed decision. However, surveys and anecdotes repeatedly show that the vast majority of patients want to be seen by physicians because they want someone who has the highest training and experience to handle their health needs. This is especially true if your co-pay or medical bill is the same whether you're seen by an NP or physician. It would be like paying $500/hour expecting the services of an experienced lawyer and getting a paralegal instead. I would feel like I got ripped off!!!
I do introduce myself as Dr... I have the education and the debt to back up my education in my field.
I know a few CRNAS that make 250K. With the national average of Anesthesi"ologists" being lower, it looks like nurses in general are getting a bit too big for their britches.
Must be another troll.
So does this guy.
Question. Have a problem with OD's calling themselves doctor?
Why would I...?
The title "doctor" and four dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Wow. Half price.
You dodged the question.