Huff Post Nursing Article

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.

There was recently a scope of practice debate at my school between an AMA rep and a nursing union rep. Med students and nursing students were both invited. Med students were for the most part busy studying/researching/on rotations. The nursing administration made it a mandatory attendance event with sign in and organized rally posters. I couldn't hear more than two words from the AMA rep through all the booing.
Media and grassroots involvement for nursing is almost mandatory. That's why they are winnning.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In general it seems like as a society we are shifting to this professional structure where no one is superior to one another and everyone is a "equal part of the team." There is a time and place for this attitude but when there are clearly groups that are more intelligent, trained, experienced. etc., I see no problem with developing a hierarchy. I blame the trophies-for-everyone generation. We are an entire society of insecure people with an inferiority complex. There will always be someone brighter and better. Just get used to it.
Except when it comes to malpractice - then it's the physician's fault.
 
I tell every med student I care about to specialize. If you're going to do FM, do a fellowship. My state already has equal practicing rights for physicians and nurses.

I only recommend FM and primary care to people who I know are independently wealthy. Oddly enough, the only people I know of in my class who are going int these fields are independently wealthy and come from very privileged backgrounds...
 
I didn't get her point about being the docs eyes and ears. It's like she's acting like doctor's never physically see patients and that we can't have as much of an emotional attachment to them.

From my experiences working on a busy unit of a major city hospital, I think nurses are absolutely the doc's eyes and ears. You can't really compare the amount of time that those two professions spend with their patients. If a patient's symptoms begin to change and they start taking a turn for the worse (or the better), I doubt it will be the doctor who first recognizes it and can describe everything that's been happening with the patient. And if it was solely up to the physician to recognize those things, and they were the only one responsible for making small changes to treatments in response, outcomes would probably be significantly worse. That's just the way the job works. A nurse doesn't have to take pages constantly and run from unit to unit.

Yep. We had a very green pharmacist who was constantly trying to narrow antibiotic coverage on every damn patient. It was painful watching the attending with 20+ yrs of experience repeatedly fending off reccs from a pharmacist who was 1 yr out from training.

The rookie pharmacist should probably learn to shut his mouth on this one, but I don't really know the situation. Older docs can be pretty stubborn. I worked at a major city hospital associated with a top 10 medical school, and even 5 years ago, there was no hospital-wide EMR. Why? Not because they didn't have the resources to do it, but because a lot of docs in positions of power were too stubborn to change. EMR means entering things step-by-step into the right places in a computer system. With a paper chart you can scribble a few lines and have someone else interpret and enter it all. If you had been doing the former for your whole career, how willing would you be to change?

I'm inclined to trust the physician in the situation you discussed, but you can't always guarantee that a 20+ year attending is apt to follow all the most recent "best practices". He could just be doing things the way he's done them for a long time. Could a fresh pharmacy school grad have a better knowledge of recent pharmacological advances and research than a doctor who finished school in 1985? Perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Media and grassroots involvement for nursing is almost mandatory. That's why they are winnning.
And there are a ton of them. It's not about winning. It's about selling them to the public as just as good, but cheaper. But they really aren't either...

Docs are fractionated and too busy..$10 per nurse buys alot more lobbyists than $1000 per doc. .
 
Last edited:
From my experiences working on a busy unit of a major city hospital, I think nurses are absolutely the doc's eyes and ears. You can't really compare the amount of time that those two professions spend with their patients. If a patient's symptoms begin to change and they start taking a turn for the worse (or the better), I doubt it will be the doctor who first recognizes it and can describe everything that's been happening with the patient. And if it was solely up to the physician to recognize those things, and they were the only one responsible for making small changes to treatments in response, outcomes would probably be significantly worse. That's just the way the job works. A nurse doesn't have to take pages constantly and run from unit to unit.



The rookie pharmacist should probably learn to shut his mouth on this one, but I don't really know the situation. Older docs can be pretty stubborn. I worked at a major city hospital associated with a top 10 medical school, and even 5 years ago, there was no hospital-wide EMR. Why? Not because they didn't have the resources to do it, but because a lot of docs in positions of power were too stubborn to change. EMR means entering things step-by-step into the right places in a computer system. With a paper chart you can scribble a few lines and have someone else interpret and enter it all. If you had been doing the former for your whole career, how willing would you be to change?

I'm inclined to trust the physician in the situation you discussed, but you can't always guarantee that a 20+ year attending is apt to follow all the most recent "best practices". He could just be doing things the way he's done them for a long time. Could a fresh pharmacy school grad have a better knowledge of recent pharmacological advances and research than a doctor who finished school in 1985? Perhaps.
The nurses have alot of patients to take care of...and this number is increasing as budget cuts are coming to hospitals.

Pharmacy is another story for another thread.
 
And there are a ton of them. It's not about winning. It's about selling them to the public as just as good, but cheaper. But they really aren't either...

Docs are fractionated and too busy..$10 per nurse buys alot more lobbyists than $1000 per doc. .

Scary thought considering the ridiculous amount of power that lobbyists hold these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Does this actually happen? I'm skeptical, but if it does happen, you have to keep it on the hush hush around here, else pre-allo will catch wind of it and then we'll have another thread about how being a resident makes you more attractive to women.

Being a med student makes you more attractive to women, If I wear my "college of medicine" shirt out, I get more attention from women. I'm not sure this works for the girls in our class.
 
From my experiences working on a busy unit of a major city hospital, I think nurses are absolutely the doc's eyes and ears. You can't really compare the amount of time that those two professions spend with their patients. If a patient's symptoms begin to change and they start taking a turn for the worse (or the better), I doubt it will be the doctor who first recognizes it and can describe everything that's been happening with the patient. And if it was solely up to the physician to recognize those things, and they were the only one responsible for making small changes to treatments in response, outcomes would probably be significantly worse. That's just the way the job works. A nurse doesn't have to take pages constantly and run from unit to unit.



The rookie pharmacist should probably learn to shut his mouth on this one, but I don't really know the situation. Older docs can be pretty stubborn. I worked at a major city hospital associated with a top 10 medical school, and even 5 years ago, there was no hospital-wide EMR. Why? Not because they didn't have the resources to do it, but because a lot of docs in positions of power were too stubborn to change. EMR means entering things step-by-step into the right places in a computer system. With a paper chart you can scribble a few lines and have someone else interpret and enter it all. If you had been doing the former for your whole career, how willing would you be to change?

I'm inclined to trust the physician in the situation you discussed, but you can't always guarantee that a 20+ year attending is apt to follow all the most recent "best practices". He could just be doing things the way he's done them for a long time. Could a fresh pharmacy school grad have a better knowledge of recent pharmacological advances and research than a doctor who finished school in 1985? Perhaps.
Finished school in 1985? Please look up CME, Board certification, moc. After you have looked up and understand these terms then let's have a discussion about a physician's knowledge.

And you are a tadpole. Come back to sdn and discuss eyes and ears when you have at least one year of attending experience under your belt.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad