FP Journal Editor in chief wants to fully embrace NPs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
MrMannix said:
I feel so sorry for my cohorts. :( NANDA is such a waste of time.
Click to expand...

It does keep professors employed.
Members don't see this ad.
 
:thumbup: 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.


pprsb1220a.jpg


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.​
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Quoted from Taurus:

Clinical training hrs
DNP: 700 (offered online :eek:)
PA: 2400
MD/DO: >17000

50% failed simplified Step 3 :wow:

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? :scared:
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.
 
PSYCHNP said:
Quoted from Taurus:

Clinical training hrs
DNP: 700 (offered online :eek:)
PA: 2400
MD/DO: >17000

50% failed simplified Step 3 :wow:

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? :scared:
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.
Click to expand...

Troll Troll go away come back some other day!
 
the one question that all DNP's are dying to ask
How do you know? I suspect al healthcare professionals will not have a problem with appropriate identification. Will this change also impact you? Will your new nametag read Taurus/Resident? Maybe you already explain to your patients you are still a resident? My experience has been that those who protest the loudest are usually the biggest offenders.
 
Taurus said:
:thumbup: 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.


pprsb1220a.jpg


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.​
Click to expand...

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.
 
fab4fan 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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Very plainly on my lab coat it says name, physician assistant. I go into the room and introduce myself as Mr., one of the PAs. And still most of the time they call me "doctor" anyway, even after correcting them.

I don't see the name tag thing as doing anything to change this at all....
 
fab4fan 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taurus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
fab4fan said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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!!!
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Taurus said:
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.
Click to expand...

In my entire career I've never seen any clinical setting where HR didn't slap a badge on you.
 
Taurus said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Big letters attached to the bottom of the badge (as a tab)

'Doctor' and 'RN' is what CHW uses (hospital system in the West)...The tabs are color coded as well...

Much better than color coded scrubs...
 
fab4fan said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
zenman said:
In my entire career I've never seen any clinical setting where HR didn't slap a badge on you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paseo Del Norte said:
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.
Click to expand...


And doctors should not be calling their secretaries/medical assistants "nurses."

See how it works both ways, Taurus?
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not skilled enough to reproduce my actual badge, but it goes something like this:

(mug shot)

fab4fan

RN

FAB4FAN DOE RN,***
 
fab4fan said:
I am not skilled enough to reproduce my actual badge, but it goes something like this:

(mug shot)

fab4fan

RN

FAB4FAN DOE RN,***
Click to expand...
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.
 
Well, with our badges, if you can't tell what your provider's status is, then you probably need to have someone stay with you at the bedside to explain it. I'm not sure it could be any clearer.

I'm all for making things clear. I had someone barking orders at me where I used to work. Long white coat, scrubs. Found out the guy was not licensed to do anything, just a lackey who worked for a surgeon as his office assistant. There were no words (wait, oh yes, there were words, I just can't say them here ) for how mad I was.
 
Paseo Del Norte said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!:D
 
zenman said:
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!:D
Click to expand...

You have to, how else will the tigers know who not to eat ;)
 
fab4fan said:
And doctors should not be calling their secretaries/medical assistants "nurses."

See how it works both ways, Taurus?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paseo Del Norte said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in their right mind should be against identifying themself and letting the patient know exactly who you are and what your role is. Another place I worked had a tag that hangs from the bottom of your badge that says RN, resident MD, attending MD, XRAY TECH, etc.

In my facility, we have RN, MD, etc next to our names, and all MD's have their title in blue. The writing is not that large, so its sometimes harder to determine unless you really look at the badge. I have yet to see any NP identify/his or herself as anything other than an NP. I have seen a few PA's let the patient call him doctor and not correct the patient, but most of them are very good about correcting it. The good residents identify themselves to the patient as a resident "working with Dr. So and So" and I have not had a patient refuse to see a resident that way. If the patient thinks that the resident is the one in charge and is not made aware that he/she is not in fact the attending in charge, they do get angry sometimes.
 
Taurus said:
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
Click to expand...

This part caught me eye:

"Payette Clinic practitioners knew or had reason to know that the massive quantities of controlled substances they were prescribing were either being diverted by patients and sold in the illegal drug market, or being taken by their patients at great risk to the patient's own health," the suit says.

I'm sorry, if that's what you were doing with the excess pills this clinic allegedly gave you then you should be barred from the lawsuit.
 
Derm problem:

FP physician visit x 2: :thumbdown: results

Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Surprise, surprise, surprise :laugh:
 
zenman said:
Derm problem:

FP physician visit x 2: :thumbdown: results

Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Surprise, surprise, surprise :laugh:
Click to expand...

I love anecdotes:thumbup:. I hear you man, evidence/factual data is totally boringg


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
zenman said:
Derm problem:

FP physician visit x 2: :thumbdown: results

Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Surprise, surprise, surprise :laugh:
Click to expand...

it's a tough dx. that's why they call syphillis "the great imposter"....:)
 
zenman said:
Derm problem:

FP physician visit x 2: :thumbdown: results

Weeks later. Urgent Care clinic NP visit: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Surprise, surprise, surprise :laugh:
Click to expand...

No surprise. It's always easier to be right when you're the second (or third, or fourth...) person seeing the patient.
 
drift said:
I love anecdotes:thumbup:. I hear you man, evidence/factual data is totally boringg


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


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.:laugh:

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....
 
Blue Dog said:
No surprise. It's always easier to be right when you're the second (or third, or fourth...) person seeing the patient.
Click to expand...

That is true and I'm glad the second person was right. Now, I hope my liver survives the first person!:scared:
 
zenman said:
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.:laugh:

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....
Click to expand...

wow, just wow.
 
I wish my hospital badge looked like this. I love getting referred to as a tech by other staff. Sorry miss, I'm a doctor of Audiology. No not an MD. No not a physician. Sorry not claiming to be, but sorry I earned the degree, please allow me to use my official title.

Thanks!
 
Taurus said:
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!!!
Click to expand...


Your take on this is a little bit insulting. Just because someone doesn't have an MD or DO after their name does not negate their education. We make it general practice to refer to our DPT's as doctor same with our Audiologists any other doctorate level professionals in the hospital setting. It has nothing to do with stroking egos, or deception, it's about giving respect to the titles people have earned through their education.

Now referring to anyone as a physician who isn't then yes I will agree with you there. Never once have I referred to myself as a physician but I do introduce myself as Dr. and give my official title of audiologist. I have the education and the debt to back up my education in my field. Thanks.
 
Blue Dog said:
:)
Click to expand...

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.
 
guetzow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Must be another troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
  • Question
Is it true insurance companies pay NPs as much as physicians in Oregon?
Replies
18
Views
6K
tinyhandsbob
tinyhandsbob
S
What is the pay, lifestyle, and job of Psychiatric NPs like?? How easy to get into the field from BSN.
Replies
4
Views
2K
studentdocmember
S
D
PA is chief of hospitalist service at VA
Replies
5
Views
2K
pamac
P
S
Questions about RNs, CRNAs, NPs
Replies
5
Views
2K
pamac
P
Jack-of-all-trades
PAs and NPs in interventional radiology
Replies
3
Views
2K
betamale
B
Top