New NJ Law Requiring All HCW to Clearly Identify Degree and Training

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

slowthai

holding a barbell.
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
4,684


I will say that I never expected this. I just hope that it's actually enforceable and other states follow suit as quickly as possible.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 33 users
Members don't see this ad :)
This doesn’t mean DNPs can write “Doctor” in their badge right? I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna play this
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
This doesn’t mean DNPs can write “Doctor” in their badge right? I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna play this

Very likely it will be that they have to say NP or DNP on the badge. The whole point of this is to prevent confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
This doesn’t mean DNPs can write “Doctor” in their badge right? I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna play this
From the reddit post: "In New Jersey, all healthcare workers will be required to wear a badge showing their degree and training. They will be required to state their training and degree, both verbally and in writing." I thought a DNP would have to introduce themselves as, "Hi, I am Dr. XYZ and I am Doctor of Nurse Practice"
 
From the reddit post: "In New Jersey, all healthcare workers will be required to wear a badge showing their degree and training. They will be required to state their training and degree, both verbally and in writing." I thought a DNP would have to introduce themselves as, "Hi, I am Dr. XYZ and I am Doctor of Nurse Practice"

Yeah, Dr is a title, not a degree. Their badge will show their degree, so it will either say DNP or NP. I think more and more places will start making it policy that nurses can’t use the dr title in a clinical setting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Glad to hear it. :) A step in the right direction. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My state finally in the news for something good? Let's go NJ
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users
Yeah, Dr is a title, not a degree. Their badge will show their degree, so it will either say DNP or NP. I think more and more places will start making it policy that nurses can’t use the dr title in a clinical setting.
Can you expand on this a bit and flesh out what you're stating? In your view, who can appropriately be addressed as Dr. X?
 
  • Okay...
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It seems as though physicians should be called physicians/surgeons/psychiatrists/obstetricians/etc. in the hospital--- Dr. X, our Ob/Gyn physician. Or Dr. A, our cardiovascular surgeon... and so on
If you have a Ph.D, you've earned the title. Dr. X, our organic chemist. Or Dr. Y, our librarian. Or Dr. Z, our nurse practitioner... and so on.
 
  • Okay...
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
It seems as though physicians should be called physicians/surgeons/psychiatrists/obstetricians/etc. in the hospital--- Dr. X, our Ob/Gyn physician. Or Dr. A, our cardiovascular surgeon... and so on
If you have a Ph.D, you've earned the title. Dr. X, our organic chemist. Or Dr. Y, our librarian. Or Dr. Z, our nurse practitioner... and so on.

This isn't hard. Use Dr. to refer to only physicians in clinical settings. Outside of the clinic, feel free to use Dr. to whoever you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
And using Dr. specifically to mean MD/DO in a clinical setting is something society agreed upon. When someone gets a heart attack on the flight and they ask "is there a doctor on board?", everyone knows they're not referring to Dr. Smith, the physicist or Dr. Johnson the anthropologist.

Doesn't take away from the achievements of Dr. Smith or Dr. Johnson though.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 14 users
It seems as though physicians should be called physicians/surgeons/psychiatrists/obstetricians/etc. in the hospital--- Dr. X, our Ob/Gyn physician. Or Dr. A, our cardiovascular surgeon... and so on
If you have a Ph.D, you've earned the title. Dr. X, our organic chemist. Or Dr. Y, our librarian. Or Dr. Z, our nurse practitioner... and so on.

That’s way too complicated. The title dr is very closely associated with physicians. Anyone called a dr in a hospital or clinical setting is going to get mistaken for a physician.

A PhD has earned the title in a non-clinical setting. There is literally zero need for any PhD to go by dr in a hospital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
And before anyone wants to throw out this myth, no PhDs did not have the title dr first. The first to use the title were theologians, lawyers, and physicians.
Well first it was used to describe someone who mastered a subject (in this case theology) and was qualified to teach it. Then it was expanded to include people who were masters of law and medicine who were qualified to teach their respective fields. It wasn't originally meant to designate that this person was qualified to perform their art-- that arises naturally out of mastery.
That’s way too complicated. The title dr is very closely associated with physicians. Anyone called a dr in a hospital or clinical setting is going to get mistaken for a physician.

A PhD has earned the title in a non-clinical setting. There is literally zero need for any PhD to go by dr in a hospital.
The goal we all share is being able to better distinguish and ultimately nullify the power-grab at a word. It makes sense to characterize exactly who a patient is seeing:

"Hello Matt, this is Dr. 35, a neurosurgeon. Also on your team is Dr. Nine, a psychiatrist and Dr. Lawpy, a nurse practitioner. Your team is entirely qualified and specialized."

Everyone gets their cake and eats it to.
This isn't hard. Use Dr. to refer to only physicians in clinical settings. Outside of the clinic, feel free to use Dr. to whoever you want.
No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.
And using Dr. specifically to mean MD/DO in a clinical setting is something society agreed upon. When someone gets a heart attack on the flight and they ask "is there a doctor on board?", everyone knows they're not referring to Dr. Smith, the physicist or Dr. Johnson the anthropologist.

Doesn't take away from the achievements of Dr. Smith or Dr. Johnson though.

When someone is asking for a "doctor" on a plane, they're using the word doctor in a specific context that we all understand. A Geology Ph.D or a Music Ph.D wouldn't stand up in this situation. Asking for a physician or surgeon/etc. would clarify this further and ultimately end the paranoia that a DNP stands up in a plane to respond to a crisis.
 
  • Dislike
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.
It's not gatekeeping to use the word in its correct context. Doctors always mean physicians in any clinical setting. Stop falling for midlevel propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users
It's not gatekeeping to use the word in its correct context. Doctors always mean physicians in any clinical setting. Stop falling for midlevel propaganda.
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.

What alternative definition? And how is it context dependent in a clinical setting?

If someone's going to a clinic in hopes of seeing a doctor, they're expecting to see is the physician, not a midlevel pretending to be one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Well first it was used to describe someone who mastered a subject (in this case theology) and was qualified to teach it. Then it was expanded to include people who were masters of law and medicine who were qualified to teach their respective fields. It wasn't originally meant to designate that this person was qualified to perform their art-- that arises naturally out of mastery.
It was a title licensed by the church for teaching. The first three fields were theology, law, and medicine. The PhD didn’t even exist when the title was first being used by those fields.
The goal we all share is being able to better distinguish and ultimately nullify the power-grab at a word. It makes sense to characterize exactly who a patient is seeing:

"Hello Matt, this is Dr. 35, a neurosurgeon. Also on your team is Dr. Nine, a psychiatrist and Dr. Lawpy, a nurse practitioner. Your team is entirely qualified and specialized."

Everyone gets their cake and eats it to.

This is ridiculous. This is not about people getting their cake. It is about the patient. Patients need complete transparency on who is taking care of them. I 100% guarantee you that if you tell 10 patients you are dr. X the nurse practitioner, 9 of them will assume you are a physician.

Being a physician implies a specific level of mastery of your field. The entire reason NPs made the DNP was to blur the differences between their knowledge and physician knowledge because they know the title dr essentially = physician.
No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.
The only problem is everyone wants to be a doctor, but no one wants to go to medical school. If you want to say, “hi I’m dr B” to a patient in a clinical setting, graduate from medical school.
When someone is asking for a "doctor" on a plane, they're using the word doctor in a specific context that we all understand. A Geology Ph.D or a Music Ph.D wouldn't stand up in this situation. Asking for a physician or surgeon/etc. would clarify this further and ultimately end the paranoia that a DNP stands up in a plane to respond to a crisis.
But the public won’t do that because to 99% of people, doctor = physician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
No you’re argument isn’t valid. This is proved with one simple thought experiment: if I walk into a patients room right now and say “hi I’m Dr. X” then what does that patient immediately assume I am?

If your answer isn’t “a physician” then you are lying. That is the context. In a clinical setting the title doctor means physician. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
What alternative definition? And how is it context dependent in a clinical setting?

If someone's going to a clinic in hopes of seeing a doctor, they're expecting to see is the physician, not a midlevel pretending to be one.
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).
This is why i always suggest to call midlevels and nurses by their first names even if they have a doctorate
That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.
 
  • Dislike
  • Inappropriate
Reactions: 5 users
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
It doesn’t matter what it explicitly means. It matters what the patient thinks. The most important person in this equation is the patient. Not the NP’s ego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
Right, so the goal would be to help the patient understand through clarifying instead of fighting a war with words that legitimately mean what they mean regardless of what the patient thinks.

By definition, both are Dr.'s, but only one is a doctor. If you want to fight that, that's a hard battle which has plenty of ways to backfire on physicians.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 3 users
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).

That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.

Doctors of nursing are just midlevels having an inferiority complex and creating a doctorate degree to feel equivalent to physicians. It's a load of nonsense that midlevels should be blamed and slammed for failing to standardize their own training and allow crappy online midlevel programs to exist

Also for the record, i call residents by their first name. Literally zero problems and they're physicians in training. The only ones taking the issue are midlevels with bruised egos and MS1s on social media virtue signalling their love for midlevels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Doctors of nursing are just midlevels having an inferiority complex and creating a doctorate degree to feel equivalent to physicians. It's a load of nonsense that midlevels should be blamed and slammed for failing to standardize their own training and allow crappy online midlevel programs to exist

Also for the record, i call residents by their first name. Literally zero problems and they're physicians in training. The only ones taking the issue are midlevels with bruised egos and MS1s on social media virtue signalling their love for midlevels.
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.
 
  • Dislike
  • Inappropriate
Reactions: 2 users
Right, so the goal would be to help the patient understand through clarifying instead of fighting a war with words that legitimately mean what they mean regardless of what the patient thinks.

By definition, both are Dr.'s, but only one is a doctor. If you want to fight that, that's a hard battle which has plenty of ways to backfire on physicians.
The patient is there to receive the best transparent care they deserve - led by a physician. They're not there to be educated on the differences between MD and DNP. In a clinical setting, there is no "alternative context" where a DNP or non-MD/DO doctorate should refer themselves as a doctor unless a patient is specifically seeing a doctorate professional in their own private office (like a PT). If I was working with a DNP, I would simply say this is [X first name], your nurse practitioner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.
Right, so the goal would be to help the patient understand through clarifying instead of fighting a war with words that legitimately mean what they mean regardless of what the patient thinks.

By definition, both are Dr.'s, but only one is a doctor. If you want to fight that, that's a hard battle which has plenty of ways to backfire on physicians.

There is literally zero ambiguity in using the word doctor in clinical settings though. Doctors always refer to physicians and that's what the average joe anywhere in the country (and even the world) think. The only ones creating the confusion are midlevels misappropriating the word to spread disinformation and propaganda. Yes i'm willing to fight a war on words against midlevels because midlevels are endangering patient care (even killing many patients with bad care and lack of transparency about their role).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.

I don’t know what your level of training is, but it doesn’t seem like you have very much real clinical experience.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
If what you are saying is accurate, as I can't say I've experienced it, then anyone who is misrepresenting themselves as a doctor (which they can legitimately argue they are not) is taking advantage of the patient's ignorance. Obviously I'm not saying sit the pt down and give them a PowerPoint on etymology, do it with tact such as introducing the provider formally with their actual title.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t know what your level of training is, but it doesn’t seem like you have very much real clinical experience.
We don't have the same experiences, that's clear.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).

That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.

If I have a doctorate of crapola should I be referred to as doctor? "Hi I'm slowthai, Dr of crapola." I've earned this doctorate by taking and eating loads of crap. 500 hours if it, to be precise.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yes ^ the hope is that society recognizes that its crapola and naturally nobody values it therefore the degree is useless -> congrats doctor on your useless degree, Crapola Ph.D.
The deep issue here is that pts need care and the demand is greater than the supply, so there's a big open space for growth. Tribalisms going to tribalism
 
  • Dislike
  • Okay...
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t know why everyone is being so adamant about the title thing. I am not the only one that goes by doctor until he hospital. Dentists/OMFS, podiatrists, and psychologists (PsyD and PhD) all have as much right to that title in the clinical setting. Our DPTs on the other hand, do not.

Yes, DNPs are probably trying to intentionally blur the lines. But perhaps we physicians were not clear enough from the get-go. We should just go by “Rangerbob, physician” and no one would be trying to call themselves doctor anymore...

Edit: I should clarify I meant our DPTs do not ever used the title “doctor”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t know why everyone is being so adamant about the title thing. I am not the only one that goes by doctor until he hospital. Dentists/OMFS, podiatrists, and psychologists (PsyD and PhD) all have as much right to that title in the clinical setting. Our DPTs on the other hand, do not.

Yes, DNPs are probably trying to intentionally blur the lines. But perhaps we physicians were not clear enough from the get-go. We should just go by “Rangerbob, physician” and no one would be trying to call themselves doctor anymore...

Tbh, i usually think dentistry, podiatry and psychology were better merged into medicine completely but like MD vs DO, it's largely a historical accident. There's also psychiatry vs psychology issues that i'm not completely clear about but at least dentists, podiatrists and veterinarians have standardized training and take necessary boards that they deserve to be called doctors. Midlevels have no such thing other than struggling badly on a watered down version of Step 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I think I see what you're saying-- you'd be asking to change the definition of doctor to "those who pass an accredited licensure exam which is sufficiently difficult", right?
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
Tbh, i usually think dentistry, podiatry and psychology were better merged into medicine completely but like MD vs DO, it's largely a historical accident. There's also psychiatry vs psychology issues that i'm not completely clear about but at least dentists, podiatrists and veterinarians have standardized training and take necessary boards that they deserve to be called doctors. Midlevels have no such thing other than struggling badly on a watered down version of Step 3.
True, but they could easily come up with their own licensing exams (which they should do anyway, though they’ll likely be a joke as well) and point to that to say “those docs are just biased against us because we’re nurses.”

Which we are. They don’t have the medical training we have. They learn nursing care significantly better than we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don’t know what your level of training is, but it doesn’t seem like you have very much real clinical experience.

I really wish it wasn't the case, but there are full blown physicians making these arguments, lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Yeah, and they are all either docs profiting off their army of midlevels or super woke academic idiots looking for promotions.

Couldn't have said it better, lol. It's just...you expect money hungry admins to behave like this; it's almost worse hearing it from physicians. It's like, you've dedicated so much of your life to caring for patients, and you're doing this stupidity? Just retire
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think I see what you're saying-- you'd be asking to change the definition of doctor to "those who pass an accredited licensure exam which is sufficiently difficult", right?

4 years standardized training (at least 1 year being in clinicals) + licensing exam + probably additional training = doctor
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He is a premed new m1 for perspective

I figured. But I had all that experience before I started med school. I don’t like to assume that just because someone is a premed or M1 that they have no experience. Edit: but it does seem to be premeds and M1s who really just don’t get the whole midlevel issue. Which makes sense, but it’s like a whole separate Dunning-Kruger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
I figured. But I had all that experience before I started med school. I don’t like to assume that just because someone is a premed or M1 that they have no experience. Edit: but it does seem to be premeds and M1s who really just don’t get the whole midlevel issue. Which makes sense, but it’s like a whole separate Dunning-Kruger.
Sure, as did I.

I just think it's funny how this is always someone mostly shunned from the less than shiny aspects of medicine who feel this way on sdn lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top