NPs gone wild - another pill mill, now with sex scandals

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
you are posting a position statement from an organization that has bias.

they are using nursing critical care experience as part of their "training"
in truth, they are not being trained. this critical care experience - including MICU, surgical stepdown, ER - is working at a job. it is a fallacy that there is any education during this working.

there are multiple other flaws, but getting from this flawed argument of yours to your point about pain management:











non physician providers (ie NPs and PAs) did not get the memo about decreasing opioids...
Interesting studies. A typical setup of what I see here is PCP wants nothing to do with opioid or pain pts and pts are referred to the pain clinic. Pain doc sees the pt on the first visit. Procedures get set up with the pain guy. Opioid pts get handed off to the NP or PA. NP or PA get an hourly wage or salaried. Practice owned by pain guy makes a killing by keeping the difference between NP/PA wages and reimbursement. I wonder if that has something to do with it.

Members don't see this ad.
 
you are extrapolating too much and making baseless assumptions to justify your position.

i could equally suggest that the patient sees a primary care doctor who identifies known risks for opioid misuse, refuses prescribing, and then the patient goes and finds an "independent" NP or PA who decides that relieving pain with an opioid is the easiest and most financially lucrative path.

again, this is a complete supposition and there is no basis for making that conclusion. just like your statement.



stick to the facts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
you are extrapolating too much and making baseless assumptions to justify your position.

i could equally suggest that the patient sees a primary care doctor who identifies known risks for opioid misuse, refuses prescribing, and then the patient goes and finds an "independent" NP or PA who decides that relieving pain with an opioid is the easiest and most financially lucrative path.

again, this is a complete supposition and there is no basis for making that conclusion. just like your statement.



stick to the facts...
I'm not extrapolating. I said I wonder.

The studies you posted don't really show anything anyway. All you would have to do to address it is add a course on opioid prescribing to educate them, just like was done with doctors. I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I can find articles supporting whatever opinion I want. Of course, you would then argue about the validity of any article that doesn't support your position.

My training gave me a good baseline but the vast majority of what I learned about business and pain management I learned on the job. The minutia, medical lingo, and research have only a limited impact when dealing with pain pts. If it didn't, you guys wouldn't constantly argue about the best approach, steroid, etc.

Here is my point, I'm not sure who provides better care, mid-levels or us. I personally think it comes down to the individual and it's not black or white. I feel I have a good product I offer my pts, which is myself. I'm confident in keeping my community, my referring providers, and my pts happy. Because of this, I'm not worried about other providers coming in and competing with me. You obviously are. If you're confident in your ability then you should not have to worry either. I'd rather capture my pts by being good at what I do and not by trying to insult others.

I personally don't think doctors are any smarter than anyone else and I'm not confident that all the minutia in medical school translates into forming better pain management providers. If it does, then great. If it doesn't, things should change. If they don't, others who don't waste their time and money on irrelevant things will replace you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
i would actively encourage you to post articles to justify your stance.

post articles that show that APPs provide better care that are not biased. i would suggest peer reviewed articles, not from any nursing or physician organization.


fwiw, as i have stated, i have worked with APPs far more than you ever will. i am not worried at all about competition or personal financial reimbursement and if you think that is the reason i am posting, you are about as misled as Bernie Madoff investors.

i am interested in truth and quality care, and that specifically involves safe and appropriate opioid prescribing. i do not offer a product, as you seem to focus on. offering a product reminds me too much of business transactions. my world view of health care of the population is to advocate that unsafe and dangerous practices should not implemented with inadequate knowledge.

as someone who has given lectures to APPs on appropriate prescribing techniques, these only provide limited value - to those who are really interested. lectures will never change a prescribers habits if they feel the financial benefits are too great.


finally, i am not a business person, as everyone here knows. i am a doctor and i take care of people. and i believe in "Truth, Justice and....." safe medical care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honest post. This is what it comes down to. Job security. Feeling threatened.

I'm not an employee so I can't be replaced. I own my own practice so I could be put out of business. I'm not too concerned about it and I welcome the competition. This is how the world works and as I mentioned several times, I evolve or I die. I'd rather fight for my money and not ask big brother to help stifle my competition. I'd prefer for the game to be fair. If someone can offer a better or equal product for less money then so be it. That's progress and the market will help determine that.

The same people who complain of gov't interference seem to be the same ones who are crying and begging for its help.
The problem with letting the free market take care of it is that assumes perfect information. That’s all well and good for people who understand what they are consuming but that is not the case for the vast majority of our patients. They have no reliable way to distinguish between us telling them they just need some PT after a car accident and a chiropractic “doctor” telling them that it caused degenerative disc disease and they need weekly adjustments, a stem cell infusion, and a lifetime of “pain management.” It just comes down to who their attorney recommended or who showed up at the top of the Google search.
This forum is chock full of examples of patients we have treated who were preyed upon by unscrupulous providers. Yes, there are some bad actors who are physicians, but by virtue of our training and licensure, and the strictness of state medical boards, we are obligated to stay within a certain acceptable standard of care or risk losing our licensure. Chiropractors, naturopaths, and “doctors” of nursing practice who hold themselves out as equivalent to physicians seem much the opposite - their boards will never hold them to account, and, like they say about lawyers, 90% of them give the rest a bad name. We do have a duty to protect the people who come to us from such charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
To give you a construction example, suppose an elderly neighbor tells you about the very nice electrician who upgraded their breaker panel. You look at the panel and find it to be not just shoddy but downright dangerous. Looking into this individual, you find he’s not an electrician at all - he spent a month as an apprentice, did a weekend online course, then bailed and started taking out Google and Facebook ads. What do you do? This guy is preying on people who don’t know the difference between a hack and a real electrician, and putting peoples lives at risk. Do you just let the free market take care of it and hope eventually word gets around enough that people stop hiring him? What about when he moves two towns over with the same thing under a new business name? Or do you go to the state licensing board and get him cited and shut down?
The same thing is going on in our profession - undertrained “providers” are lobbying for the ability to do all the things that should be reserved for physicians. Yes, the government has a role in regulating that. Why? Because in the hands of those who do not understand their use they are potentially very harmful. It’s not perfect but it sure is better than nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
i would actively encourage you to post articles to justify your stance.

post articles that show that APPs provide better care that are not biased. i would suggest peer reviewed articles, not from any nursing or physician organization.


fwiw, as i have stated, i have worked with APPs far more than you ever will. i am not worried at all about competition or personal financial reimbursement and if you think that is the reason i am posting, you are about as misled as Bernie Madoff investors.

i am interested in truth and quality care, and that specifically involves safe and appropriate opioid prescribing. i do not offer a product, as you seem to focus on. offering a product reminds me too much of business transactions. my world view of health care of the population is to advocate that unsafe and dangerous practices should not implemented with inadequate knowledge.

as someone who has given lectures to APPs on appropriate prescribing techniques, these only provide limited value - to those who are really interested. lectures will never change a prescribers habits if they feel the financial benefits are too great.


finally, i am not a business person, as everyone here knows. i am a doctor and i take care of people. and i believe in "Truth, Justice and....." safe medical care.
Do you work in academia by any chance?

Here you go, directly from my thesis. I spent hours researching this just for you, JK, review these articles and get back to me. It's not up to me to prove that the care they provide is substandard to the care I provide. It doesn't matter because they're already here and you're fighting a losing legislative battle but feel free to keep at it if you'd like. Maybe you won't go down fighting as I predict.

If an individual pain NP moves into town and the pts and referring providers like this person better than they like me, I can hoot and holler all I want about published papers and degrees but I'm still going to be in trouble. The degree behind the name is of little importance, and the literature even less. It may matter in academia but little in the real world.

BTW, I spent plenty of time at big academic institutions and I published several papers and wrote a book chapter while at Hopkins so I'm not against research and academia. I just see its limitations with regard to managing pain in the real world.

Interesting quote from someone I worked with at Hopkins.

“You can literally train a monkey to do what we do. The challenge in what we do is not in the surgery—it’s in the emotional connection you form with the patients.” -Alfredo Quinones, MD, head of brain tumor surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Interesting study I read about a few days ago you might be interested in


_______________________________
 
Section I. Original Research
Borgmeyer, A., Gyr, P.M., Jamerson, P.A., & Henry, L.D. (2008). Evaluation of the role of the pediatric nurse practitioner in an inpatient asthma program. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 22(5), 273-281.

Borgmeyer, et al., evaluated the perception of pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) as a direct patient care manager and the pediatric patient outcomes (e.g., length of stay [LOS], costs, readmission rates) between Asthma Intervention Model (AIM) PNP-managed patients, intern-managed patients and peer children’s hospitals. Physicians, nurses, pediatric interns and families were surveyed about their experiences between July 1, 2003, and July 30, 2004. The authors conclude that PNPs were effective educators and managed patients appropriately. A comparison of AIM PNP-managed patients and intern-managed patients showed no significant difference in LOS or costs. None of the patients experienced readmission in either group.

Buerhaus, P., Perloff, J., Clarke, S., O’Reilly-Jacob, M., Zolotusky, G., & DesRoches, C. M. (2018). Quality of primary care provided to Medicare beneficiaries by nurse practitioners and physicians. Medical Care, 56(6), 484-490.

Quality of care administered by primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs), primary care physicians (PCMDs) or both types of clinicians was examined using 2012 and 2013 Medicare part A and part B claims. A retrospective cohort design using standard risk-adjustment methodologies and propensity score weighting assessed 16 claims-based quality measures, which were grouped into several primary care domains: chronic disease management, preventable hospitalizations, adverse outcomes and cancer screening. Buerhaus, et al., found that PCNP beneficiaries had lower rates of hospital admissions, readmissions and inappropriate ED use, as well as low-value imaging, compared to PCMDs or jointly attributed clinicians.

DesRoches, C. M., Clarke, S., Perloff, J., O'Reilly-Jacob, M., & Buerhaus, P. (2017). The quality of primary care provided by nurse practitioners to vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. Nursing Outlook, 65(6), 679-688.

To compare quality indicators of Medicare beneficiaries managed by PCNPs and PCMDs, DesRoches, et al., used a retrospective cohort design that examined 2012 and 2013 Medicare claims for three subpopulations amongst beneficiaries: qualifying due to disability, dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and disabled and eligible for both programs. Overall, the authors found that beneficiaries managed by PCNPs had a lower risk of preventable hospitalizations, use of emergency room services and other health care resources.

Everett, C.M., Morgan, P., Smith, V.A., Woolson, S., Edelman, D., Hendrix C.C., Berkowitz, T., White, B., & Jackson, G.L. (2019). Primary Care provider type: Are there differences in patients’ intermediate diabetes outcomes? Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, 32(6), 36-42.

Using electronic health record data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Everett, et al., examined differences in diabetes outcomes among 609,668 patients being treated at primary care clinics by physicians, physician assistants (PAs) and NPs serving in both primary care provider (PCP) and supplemental provider roles. Outcomes were examined for patients that experienced care provided by medical doctor (MD) PCPs, PA PCPs, NP PCPs or combinations of PCPs with supplemental providers. Everett, et al., found no clinically significant differences in intermediate diabetes outcomes (e.g., A1C, Systolic BP, LDL-C) between provider groups regardless of their role as usual PCP or supplemental providers.

Everett, C., Thorpe, C., Palta, M., Carayon, P., Bartels, C., & Smith, M.A. (2013). Physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform effective roles on teams caring for Medicare patients with diabetes. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 32(11).

To improve the delivery of care, patient-centered medical homes often rely on a team of clinicians with common goals and defined roles. Everett, et al. (2013), examined Medicare data from a large physician group to compare the outcomes of two groups of adult Medicare patients with diabetes at various levels of complexity who received primary care from PA and NP teams and physician-only teams. Everett, et al., found that most PA and NP outcome measurements were comparable or better than physician-only care.

Gracias, V. H., Sicoutris, C. P., Stawicki, S.P., Meredith, D. M., Horan, A. D., Gupta, R., Schwab, C.W. (2008). Critical care nurse practitioners improve compliance with clinical practice guidelines in “semiclosed” surgical intensive care unit. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 23(4), 338-344.

This study addresses if the integration of acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) in a “semiclosed” critical care delivery system would increase clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) compliance. It was conducted in two phases, in which 1,380 admissions took place at the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania: 1) patients were admitted to the “mandatory consultation”/non-ACNP team (standard care) or to the “semiclosed”/ACNP team (new model) (January-May 2003), and 2) surgical critical care service (SCCS) teams crossed over to “semiclosed”/ACNP model (June-December 2003). Critical care patients were prospectively assigned to a NP or non-NP team. Findings indicate that clinical practice guideline adherence was significantly higher among patients belonging to the NP team.

Jackson, G.L., Smith, V.A., Edelman, D., Woolson, S.L., Hendrix, C.C., Everett, C.M., Berkowitz, T.S., White, B.S., & Morgan, P.A. (2018). Intermediate diabetes outcomes in patients managed by physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants: A cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(12), 825–835.

Jackson, et al. (2018), wanted to examine if any differences existed in intermediate diabetes patient outcomes between physicians, NPs or PAs within a primary care setting. The authors conducted a cohort study using administrative data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record. The sample included 368,481 patients from 568 VA primary care facilities. Jackson, et al., did not find any significant differences in diabetes outcomes across provider groups, providing further evidence that NPs, PAs and MDs provide comparable care.

Kippenbrock, T., Emory, J., Lee, P., Odell, E., Buron, B., & Morrison, B. (2019). A national survey of nurse practitioners’ patient satisfaction outcomes. Nursing Outlook, 67(6), 707-712.

To expand upon previous studies conducted that examine patient satisfaction among NPs and MDs, the authors analyzed responses from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (n=53,885), which included several provider types: NP, MD, doctor of osteopathy (DO) and PA. Kippenbrock, et al., found that patient satisfaction was higher for NPs than other provider types.

Kuo, Y. F., Goodwin, J. S., Chen, N. W., Lwin, K. K., Baillargeon, J., & Raji, M. A. (2015). Diabetes mellitus care provided by nurse practitioners vs primary care physicians. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63(10), 1980-1988.

Using data from a national sample of 64,354 Medicare beneficiaries, a retrospective cohort study was used to compare process and cost of care for patients with diabetes mellitus in 2009 who had received primary care from an NP or primary care physician. The authors conclude that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing and nephropathy monitoring rates were similar between both providers. Between the two provider types, there was no statistically significant difference in adjusted Medicare spending.

Kuo, Y., Chen, N., Baillargeon, J., Raji, M. A., & Goodwin, J. S. (2015). Potentially preventable hospitalizations in Medicare patients with diabetes: A comparison of primary care provided by nurse practitioners versus physicians. Medical Care, 53(9), 776-783.

The rate of potentially preventable hospitalizations of Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of diabetes were compared between patients of NPs and physicians. Patients with a diagnosis of diabetes between 2007 and 2010 (n=345,819), who received all primary care from an NP only or a physician only, were selected from a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. The NP cohort and physician cohort was selected from national Medicare data using diabetes indicator data from the CMS Chronic Disease Data Warehouse, while additional data was captured by administrative claims. Several statistical methods demonstrated that receipt of care from NPs decreased the risk of potentially preventable hospitalizations. These findings suggest that NPs are exceptionally effective at treating diabetic patients.

Kurtzman, E.T. & Barnow, V.S. (2017). A comparison of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and primary care physicians' patterns of practice and quality of care in health centers. Medical Care, 55(6), 615-622.

The authors compared the quality of care and practice patterns of NPs, PAs and primary care physicians within community health centers (CHCs) using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2006-2011). Analyses were composed of 23,704 patient visits to 1,139 practitioners within CHCs, examining nine patient-level outcomes such as smoking cessation, depression treatment, statin for hyperlipidemia and imaging services. Findings suggest that NPs were more likely to provide recommended smoking cessation counseling and more health education compared to MDs; however, no significant differences were found in any other outcome measure examined across provider groups.

Landsperger, J. S., Semler, M. W., Wang, L., Byrne, D. W., & Wheeler, A. P. (2016). Outcomes of nurse practitioner-developed critical care: A prospective cohort study. Chest, 149(5), 1146–1154.

A prospective cohort study of adult medical intensive care unit (ICU) admissions at an academic tertiary-care center was conducted between 2011 and 2013. Landsperger, et al., compared 90-day survival between care administered to patients by ACNPs and resident teams using Cox proportional hazards regression. Among the 9,066 admissions the study addresses that patients cared for by ACNPs had lower ICU mortality rates and shorter lengths of hospital stay. Hospital mortality and ICU length of stay was similar between the two providers.

Lenz, E.R., Mundinger, M.O., Kane, R.L., Hopkins, S.C., & Lin, S.X. (2004). Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: Two-year follow-up. Medical Care Research and Review 61(3), 332-351.

The purpose of this study was to collect follow-up data from a randomized trial described in Mundinger, et al. (2000), that compared outcomes of patients seen by an NP versus a physician. Eligible participants were interviewed by mail, phone calls or home visits. Data was also collected from medical center billing records for the 2-year period after the initial visit. No significant differences were found in self-reported health status; satisfaction; disease-specific physiologic measures; or use of specialist, emergency room or hospital care between the two groups. However, physicians’ patients had a higher average primary care utilization than NPs’ patients.

Liu, C. F., Hebert, P. L., Douglas, J. H., Neely, E. L., Sulc, C. A., Reddy, A., & Wong, E. S. (2020). Outcomes of primary care delivery by nurse practitioners: Utilization, cost, and quality of care. Health Services Research, 55(2), 178-189.

The authors examined differences in utilization, costs and clinical outcomes between NP‐assigned patients and MD‐assigned patients. VA administrative data containing the characteristics, outcomes and provider assignments of 806,434 patients from 530 VA facilities assigned to an MD PCP who left their position within the VA in 2010 and 2012 was used. To compare patients reassigned to MD and NP PCPs, a difference‐in‐difference approach was selected. Liu, et al., found that patients assigned to NPs were less likely to utilize primary care, specialty care and inpatient services; had no difference in costs; and experienced similar chronic disease management compared to MD-assigned patients.

Lutfiyya, M.L., Tomai, L., Frogner, B., Cerra, F., Zismer, D., & Parente, S. (2017). Does primary care diabetes management provided to Medicare patients differ between primary care physicians and nurse practitioners? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(1), 240–252.

Lutfiyya, et al. (2017), wanted to examine if Medicare patients who received primary care type 2 diabetes management differed in scope and outcomes by provider type: NP or physician. A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of 2012 U.S. Medicare National Claims History, also known as the five percent Standard Analytic File (SAF), was conducted. For patient comparison, a medical productivity index (MPI) was used to stratify Medicare DM2 patients, which was defined by least healthy and most healthy. Lower cost and better quality of care was attributed to chronic care patient management by NPs.

Mafi, J. N., Wee, C. C., Davis, R. B., & Landon, B. E. (2016). Comparing use of low-value health care services among U.S. advanced practice clinicians and physicians. Annals of internal medicine, 165(4), 237-244.

The authors used National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data from 1997 to 2011 to compare the use of low-value services (e.g., upper respiratory infections, back pain and headache) commonly seen within the primary care setting between advanced practice providers (APPs [NPs and PAs]) and physicians. The authors found that both clinician groups provided equivalent low-value services.

Melillo, K.D., Remington, R., Lee, A.J., Abdallah, L., Van Etten, D., Gautam, R. & Gore, R. (2015). Comparison of nurse practitioner and physician practice models in nursing facilities. Annals of Long-Term Care, 23(12), 19-24.

Mellilo, et al., investigated the differences in NP and physician practice models in long-term care (LTC) nursing facilities. The data for this study was taken from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for the years 2006–2010, and the comparison cohorts consisted of patients who received all primary care (PC) from an MD or patients who received PC from an NP during the year reported. The reported health status of patients did not differ between comparison groups; however, the cohort with NP involvement had higher completion rates of advance directives than the MD-only cohort. The authors suggest that, “By having a higher completion rate of do not resuscitate [DNR] orders, the inclusion of NPs in LTC nursing facility care teams potentially increases resident quality of life and reduces the cost of care by minimizing the use of costly, unwanted treatments.” Overall, NPs provided comparable care to that of MDs in LTC facilities.

Muench, U., Guo, C., Thomas, C., & Perloff, J. (2019). Medication adherence, costs, and ER visits of nurse practitioner and primary care physician patients: evidence from three cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries. Health Services Research, 54(1), 187-197.

Muench, et al., used weighted propensity score matching combined with logistic regression to examine differences in good medication adherence, office-based and specialty care costs and ER visits between patients seen by NPs and primary care physicians using Medicare Part A, B and D claims between 2009 and 2013. The three drug class cohorts for analysis consisted of anti-diabetics, renin‐angiotensin system antagonists (RASA) and statins. Muench, Guo and Perloff found no differences in good medication adherence for anti-diabetics or RASA amongst NP and primary care physician provider type. Across all three medications, beneficiaries seeing NPs experienced lower office-based and specialty care costs and ER visits.

Mundinger, M.O., Kane, R.L., Lenz, E.R., Totten, A.M., Tsai, W.Y., Cleary, P.D., Friedewald W.T., Siu A.L., & Shelanski, M.L. (2000). Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(1), 59-68.

The purpose of the study was to compare outcomes of primary care delivered by NPs and physicians for patients receiving follow-up care after visiting the emergency department or urgent care. Adults were recruited from an urgent care and two emergency departments that were part of the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center system. Patients were randomly assigned to either an NP or physician clinic for care between August 1995 to October 1997. Data was collected from telephone and in-person interviews and health services utilization data. Patient satisfaction, health status, physiological tests and health service utilization had no significant differences between the two provider groups at six months. NPs’ patients with hypertension had statistically significant lower diastolic values. Overall, when NPs were in the same setting and held similar authority as physicians, patient outcomes for NPs and physicians were found to be comparable.

Ohman-Strickland, P.A., Orzano, A.J., Hudson, S.V., Solberg, L.I., DiCiccio-Bloom, B., O’Malley, D., et al. (2008). Quality of diabetes care in family medicine practices: Influence of nurse-practitioners and physician’s assistants. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(1), 14-22. doi:10.1370/afm.758

The purpose of the study was to evaluate if the quality of diabetes care differs between physician-only practices and practices with APPs (NPs or PAs) and to identify any contributing characteristics related to differences in care. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data of adult patients treated for type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the past year from 46 practices, measuring adherence to American Diabetes Association clinical guidelines. The study addresses that family medicine practices with NPs performed better than physician-only practices and significantly better than practices with PAs regarding quality measures of diabetic care (e.g., monitoring hemoglobin A1C, lipid and microalbumin levels). Practices with NPs were also more likely to have patients attain lipid targets than practices with PAs.

Rantz, M. J., Popejoy, L., Vogelsmeier, A., Galambos, C., Alexander, G., Flesner, M., & Petroski, G. (2018). Impact of advanced practice registered nurses on quality measures: The Missouri quality initiative experience. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 19(6), 541-550.

To examine the impact of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) on quality measure (QM) scores within the Missouri Quality Initiative (MOQI) intervention, Rantz, et al., conducted a two-group comparison analysis, in which a matched group was selected from facilities within the same county as the intervention nursing homes that were similar in QM scores, size and ownership between September 2013 and September 2016. Rantz, et al., found that QM scores for the APRN intervention group were better than the comparison group.

Ritsema, T. S., Bingenheimer, J. B., Scholting, P., & Cawley, J. F. (2014). Differences in the delivery of health education to patients with chronic disease by provider type, 2005-2009. Preventing Chronic Disease, (11)33.

This original Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research evaluated the rate of health education provided by NPs/certified midwives, PAs and physicians to patients with chronic diseases. A secondary analysis was conducted using a sample of 136,432 adult patient visits (2005–2009) with chronic conditions (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], depression, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, ischemic heart disease and obesity) drawn from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). The authors found that health education delivery to patients with chronic conditions was higher among NPs and PAs than physicians.

Roblin, D.W., Becker, R., Adams, E.K., Howard, D. H., & Roberts, M.H. (2004). Patient satisfaction with primary care: Does type of practitioner matter? Medical Care, 42(6), 606-623.

This study evaluates the relationship between patient satisfaction and practitioner type during primary care visits at a managed-care organization. A retrospective observational study of 41,209 patient satisfaction surveys randomly sampled between 1997 and 2000 for visits by pediatric and medicine departments identified higher satisfaction with NP and/or PA interactions than those with physicians, for the overall sample and by specific conditions.

Sacket, D.L., Spitzer, W. O., Gent, M., & Roberts, M. (1974). The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner: Health outcomes of patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 80(2), 137-142.

A sample of 1,598 families were randomly allocated, so that two-thirds continued to receive primary care from a family physician and one-third received care from an NP. Four outcome measurements (i.e., mortality rates and physical, emotional and social function) were applied to patients in the trial to observe clinical effectiveness and safety. Results demonstrated comparable outcomes. Mortality rates had no significant differences between the two study groups. The measurements of physical, emotional and social function in both groups had similar levels after one year of care.

Spitzer, W.O., Sackett, D.L., Sibley, J.C., Roberts, M., Gent, M., Kergin, D.J., Hacket, B.D., & Olynich, A. (1974). The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. New England Journal of Medicine, 290(3), 252-256.

From July 1971 to July 1972, a randomized controlled trial was conducted in two family practices in Burlington to compare the effects of utilizing NPs or physicians to provide primary care services. The purpose of this paper was to detail the study design, logistics, data and summary of results, also described in Sackett, et al. The chosen unit for randomization was families; 1,598 families were eligible for the trial, and two-thirds were assigned to standard care with a family physician and the other third to care with NPs. A household survey was conducted before and after the experimental period to collect health status and medical services utilization. During this one-year period, management of preselected indicator conditions and drug prescriptions were assessed for quality of care.

Tapper, E. B., Hao, S., Lin, M., Mafi, J. N., McCurdy, H., Parikh, N. D., & Lok, A. S. (2020). The quality and outcomes of care provided to patients with cirrhosis by advanced practice providers. Hepatology, 71(1), 225-234.

Tapper, et al., examined the effect of care quality and outcomes for adult cirrhosis patients managed by APPs (NPs or PAs). A retrospective analysis was conducted using Optum, an American commercial claims database, which yielded 389,257 unique patients. APP patients had higher rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening and varices screening, increased use of rifaximin after discharge for hepatic encephalopathy, lower risk of readmission within 30 days and lower risk of death. When working with gastroenterologists/hepatologists, APPs were associated with improved quality of care and patient outcomes.

Virani, S. S., Akeroyd, J. M., Ramsey, D. J., Chan, W. J., Frazier, L., Nasir, K., & Petersen, L. A. (2016). Comparative effectiveness of outpatient cardiovascular disease and diabetes care delivery between advanced practice providers and physician providers in primary care: Implications for care under the Affordable Care Act. American Heart Journal, 181, 74-82.

Virani, et al., compared the quality of care delivered by APPs (NPs or PAs) and physicians to patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a primary care setting. Clinical and administrative data was used to identify diabetes or CVD patients from all 130 VA facilities who sought care during the 2014 fiscal year (October 2013–September 2014). Quality of care for diabetes and CVD patients delivered in a primary care setting was comparable between APPs and physicians, noting no significant differences.

Virani, S. S., Maddox, T. M., Chan, P. S., Tang, F., Akeroyd, J. M., Risch, S. A., & Petersen, L. A. (2015). Provider Type and Quality of Outpatient Cardiovascular Disease Care: Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE Registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66(16), 1803-1812.

The purpose of the study was to determine if there were any clinical differences in quality of care given by APPs (NPs or PAs) versus physicians. Performance measures compared for care included: quality of coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) care. Patients enrolled in the registry who had an outpatient cardiology visit in 2012 were included in the study and two analyses were conducted: 1) comparing patients receiving care from APPs to patients receiving care from physicians in a practice with physicians and APPs, and 2) comparing patients receiving care in practices with physicians and APPs to patients receiving care from physician-only practices. Patient data was extracted from the American College of Cardiology’s PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) registry and National Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers were used to determine if the treating practitioner was a physician or APP. Quality measures were comparable among both groups, and smoking cessation screening intervention was higher among the APP group for CAD patients.

Wright, W.L., Romboli, J.E., DiTulio, M.A., Wogen, J., & Belletti, D.A. (2011). Hypertension treatment and control within an independent nurse practitioner setting. American Journal of Managed Care, 17(1), 58-65.

To compare the proportion of hypertensive patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) being treated by NPs to the proportion of comparable patients with controlled BP being treated by primary care physicians, Wright, et al., conducted a cross-sectional retrospective medical record review at 21 physician-based practices across the U.S. and three independent NP-based practices in northeastern U.S. between December 2007 and November 2009. Wright, et al., found comparable controlled blood pressure rates across provider groups.

Yang, Y., Long, Q., Jackson, S. L., Rhee, M. K., Tomolo, A., Olson, D., & Phillips, L. S. (2018). Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are comparable in managing the first five years of diabetes. The American Journal of Medicine, 131(3), 276-283.

Yang, et al., examined hemoglobin A1c levels over the course of natural diabetes in patients cared for by NPs, PAs and physicians at the VHA, all of which who practice under a similar scope of practice within this integrated health care system. A retrospective cohort study was comprised of veterans who had been newly diagnosed with diabetes in 2008, experienced the continuation of primary care between 2008 and 2012 and had 75% or greater percentage of primary care visits with one of the three provider types. The authors conclude that patient care administered by NPs and PAs was comparable to physicians at diagnosis and during the four-year follow-up period.

Section II. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Bakerjian, D. (2008). Care of nursing home residents by advanced practice nurses: A review of the literature. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 1(3), 177-185. doi: 10.3928/00220124-20091301-01.

Bakerjian conducted an extensive review of the literature, particularly of NP-led care, and found that long-term care patients managed by NPs were less likely to have avoidable geriatric complications such as falls, urinary tract infections (UTIs), pressure ulcers, etc. They also had improved functional status, as well as better managed chronic conditions.

Brown, S.A. & Grimes, D.E. (1995). A meta-analysis of nurse practitioners and nurse midwives in primary care. Nursing Research, 44(6), 332-9.

A meta-analysis of 38 studies, comparing a total of 33 patient outcomes of NPs with those of physicians, demonstrated that NP outcomes were equivalent to or greater than those of physicians. NP patients had higher levels of compliance with recommendations in studies where provider assignments were randomized and when other means to control patient risks were used. Patient satisfaction and the resolution of pathological conditions were greatest for NPs. NP and physician outcomes were equivalent on all other outcomes.

Carter, A., Chochinov, A. (2007). A systematic review of the impact of nurse practitioners on cost, quality of care, satisfaction and wait times in the emergency department. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 9(4), 286-95.

This systematic review of 36 articles examines if the hiring of NPs in emergency rooms can reduce wait time, improve patient satisfaction and result in the delivery of cost-effective, quality care. Results showed that hiring NPs can result in reduced wait times, leading to higher patient satisfaction. NPs were found to be equally as competent as physicians at interpreting x-rays and more competent at following up with patients by phone, conducting physical examinations and issuing appropriate referrals.

Congressional Budget Office. (1979). Physician extenders: Their current and future role in medical care delivery. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.

As early as 1979, the Congressional Budget Office reviewed findings of the numerous studies of NP performance in a variety of settings and concluded that NPs performed as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, the management of specified medical conditions and the frequency of patient satisfaction.

Kleinpell, R. M., Grabenkort, W. R., Kapu, A. N., Constantine, R., & Sicoutris, C. (2019). Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in acute and critical care: a concise review of the literature and data 2008–2018. Critical care medicine, 47(10), 1442.

Kleinpell, et al., conducted a concise review of the literature published on NP and PA utilization and outcomes in intensive care units and acute care settings over the 10-year period between 2008 and 2018. More than 50 individual studies and reviews were identified including those that examined care outcomes such as LOS, mortality and decreased admission rates. The authors conclude, “Overall, the studies demonstrate impact of the APP role through improved patient flow and clinical outcomes including reducing complications and improved patient care management with reduced time on mechanical ventilation, increased use of clinical practice guidelines, improved laboratory test use and increased palliative care consultations, among other areas of impact.”

Laurant, M., Reeves, D., Hermens, R., Braspenning, J., Grol, R., & Sibbald, B. (2006). Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 1. CD001271.

This meta-analysis included 25 articles, relating to 16 studies, comparing outcomes of primary care nurses (nurses, NPs, clinical nurse specialists or other APRNs) and physicians. The quality of care provided by nurses was as high as that of the physicians. Overall, health outcomes and outcomes such as resource utilization and cost were equivalent for nurses and physicians. The satisfaction level was higher for nurses. Studies included a range of care delivery models, with nurses providing first contact, ongoing care and urgent care for many of the patient cohorts.

Naylor, M.D. and Kurtzman, E.T. (2010). The Role of Nurse Practitioners in Reinventing Primary Care. Health Affairs, (5), 893-99.

This meta-analysis of studies comparing the quality of primary care services of physicians and NPs demonstrates the role NPs play in reinventing how primary care is delivered. The authors found that comparable outcomes are obtained by both providers, with NPs performing better in terms of time spent consulting with the patient, patient follow ups and patient satisfaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
i worked in ER academia for 15 years.

i have also had significant roles in both mentoring, collaborating, and training multiple NPs and PAs. much more than you have had or will ever have.

i have no issue with APPs in pain medicine, but like all of us, the good ones know their limits. the others prescribe opioid medications to inappropriate patients and in quantities that are unreasonable.

---
fyi, you are - as you have done before - changed the goalposts.

you specifically asked for information on APPs with regards to pain.
then discussed CRNAs and whether they were different than anesthesiologists.
then veered back to insisting on discussing APPs and pain
now you are posting multiple articles about APPs and primary care.
what happened to APPs and pain?


you are exhibiting a fallacy in your retorts.

---

and btw, they do not use the term midlevel providers any longer. they are called Advanced Practice Providers.
 
finally, for what its worth, next time, please dont just copy and paste the entire page from the American Association of Nurse Practitioners Quality of Nurse Practitioners Advocacy page... even though i had suggested you not go to a biased source.

just put in the link. like this:

Quality of Nurse Practitioner Practice
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9 users
finally, for what its worth, next time, please dont just copy and paste the entire page from the American Association of Nurse Practitioners Quality of Nurse Practitioners Advocacy page... even though i had suggested you not go to a biased source.

just put in the link. like this:

Quality of Nurse Practitioner Practice
Smackdown complete.
 
i still call them MLPs regardless of the acronym with which they identify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
“You can literally train a monkey to do what we do. The challenge in what we do is not in the surgery—it’s in the emotional connection you form with the patients.” -Alfredo Quinones, MD, head of brain tumor surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
LOL

Then why don't they train a brain tumor technician with a "heart of gold" to do the surgery in place of Dr. Quinones?

I'm sure he'd love to lose his position and income.

He's trashing his own profession with this feel-good nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I do not understand this argument.

To say the profession of medicine is practiced better by nursing professionals and assistants of medical professionals does not even make sense. Especially when they are trained in those positions by physicians..

You don’t need data to support this because it makes no sense.

Paralegals don’t practice law better than lawyers. A dental hygienist does not practice dentistry better than a dentist.

If you value your abilities to that level then you shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I do not understand this argument.

To say the profession of medicine is practiced better by nursing professionals and assistants of medical professionals does not even make sense. Especially when they are trained in those positions by physicians..

You don’t need data to support this because it makes no sense.

Paralegals don’t practice law better than lawyers. A dental hygienist does not practice dentistry better than a dentist.

If you value your abilities to that level then you shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
Actually, this line of thinking is the way forward to advance the practice of medicine

If a poorly trained and barely educated midlevel can practice better than a physician, think about how well an NP assistant trainee could run circles around a regular NP

I'm talking about a living, breathing modern-day Sir William Osler walking the wards of the hospital two weeks after they quit their job at Arby's for a career in medicine
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
i worked in ER academia for 15 years.

i have also had significant roles in both mentoring, collaborating, and training multiple NPs and PAs. much more than you have had or will ever have.

i have no issue with APPs in pain medicine, but like all of us, the good ones know their limits. the others prescribe opioid medications to inappropriate patients and in quantities that are unreasonable.

---
fyi, you are - as you have done before - changed the goalposts.

you specifically asked for information on APPs with regards to pain.
then discussed CRNAs and whether they were different than anesthesiologists.
then veered back to insisting on discussing APPs and pain
now you are posting multiple articles about APPs and primary care.
what happened to APPs and pain?


you are exhibiting a fallacy in your retorts.

---

and btw, they do not use the term midlevel providers any longer. they are called Advanced Practice Providers.
Obviously, I copied and pasted it and didn't spend hours researching it Hence, the jk. My point is that there are articles that show midlevels to be as or more effective than we are. Those articles are still published articles, doesn't matter whether or not their organization posted it. I told you I could find it from a simple google search which you "actively encouraged" me to do. It took me about 30 seconds. There are articles that show they're effective in primary care and I think in the ICU. I didn't read through them. To think their effectiveness is limited to that and not to our specialty is foolish. I imagine that most of the NPs are in primary care so it makes sense that most of the articles reflect that. You also said no one is interested in comparing NP vs MD. These articles clearly show that you're were wrong.

I've been consistent the whole time. I don't care about CRNA vs anesthes and was responding to a post by someone else to give an example. It doesn't impact me. I also don't care if studies show they are or are not as effective of us. Also, doesn't change much for me. I don't know if they provide better healthcare than me. I do know that any individual provider can be better than me and that's my point. I know the way private practice is and I know the way my pts and my referring providers think. I know because I talk to them about it. That's what directly impacts me.

I'm glad you consistently repeat how many NPs and PAs you've trained and how much time you spent with them. Interestingly, at Hopkins and Harvard it seems that there are plenty of NPs and PAs training the residents so it goes both ways. Where did you train btw?

Unlike most on here, I don't think you're making your arguments for your financial gain. Your arguments are more likely due to intellectual arrogance.
 
I do not understand this argument.

To say the profession of medicine is practiced better by nursing professionals and assistants of medical professionals does not even make sense. Especially when they are trained in those positions by physicians..

You don’t need data to support this because it makes no sense.

Paralegals don’t practice law better than lawyers. A dental hygienist does not practice dentistry better than a dentist.

If you value your abilities to that level then you shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
I'm not making that argument. I'm not saying they're better by any means. I'm also not saying I'm better. I posted those studies in response to a post. They mean little to me. What I am saying is that most things are learned on the job and training only gets you so far. It comes down to the individual and any NP or PA, can become a better pain provider than a physician. Those studies show that they're equally effective in what was looked at. Whether or not you like it or not, the reality is that they're here and they're your competition. I don't mind it and don't feel threatened by it.

If you don't feel that they have the ability to be as effective as a provider as you are, then you should have nothing to worry about.
 
LOL

Then why don't they train a brain tumor technician with a "heart of gold" to do the surgery in place of Dr. Quinones?

I'm sure he'd love to lose his position and income.

He's trashing his own profession with this feel-good nonsense.
You might be joking but there are countries doing this and the results are interesting. Makes one wonder how important some of us think we really are. Check these out:

 
In general, I agree with your free-market view on this subject. Biggest issue I see is patients often don't get a choice in the matter and even if they did, they don't understand the differences. Do you get a choice of your anesthesia provider when getting surgery or are you just stuck with whomever works at surgical site? I used to have a PA at my last pain clinic and many patients called him "Dr. XYZ" because of course he is a doctor, right? My wife recently had a sleep study done and the initial visit was with a NP, we didn't get a choice (I was very upset by that btw).

That being said, let's be honest, most of the time, clinically, any difference isn't really a big deal. Even in anesthesia where we routinely paralyze people and breath for them. Practically, any reasonable mid-level provider with the mind and hands to do so can learn anything procedural. See one, do one, teach one. Most things we do are not rocket science.

However, there IS a difference in some of the mental things we do. In the anesthesia world, differences are in things like did the patient die because the CRNA pushed propofol to intubate during a code or would the patient have just died anyway? Did the patient need 4 anti-emetics (and the potential side effects) for surgery when there were zero PONV risk factors? Was time to discharge 2 hours longer that it had to be? Is the elderly patient's dementia worse because the CRNA gives everyone 2 of Versed whether they have anxiety or not? Did that sickle cell patient have a worse outcome because oxygen tension and fluid balance weren't optimized?

In the pain clinic, did we give unnecessary steroids to the severe osteoporotic patient? Did we cause a fall by using a TCA in the elderly when a different nerve medication would have been a better choice? Was it really radiculopathy and sacroiliitis or was it just the piriformis?

These are things that are difficult to measure, but are real.

Correct, I agree with all of this. Not to mention, no amount of complaining on this forum will change the fact that nurses are their own discipline, that have their own boards to decide their practice. The standard of care is the great equalizer between medicine and nursing and if their practice were inferior in the medico-legal realm it would have died off already. They will continue to advance their training and scope of practice alongside advances in the era of ultra-specialized medicine; unstoppable train.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think the more important question to ask is do the board exams make you a better health care provider? I'm not so sure of it. It seems like most of the posters here agree as I constantly see people complaining about how useless and unproductive they are.

It seems like standardized tests overall are going the way of the dinosaur.

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying the training is just as good (although really all I'm seeing are opinions from those with a vested interest). I just didn't like the OP's dirty tactics.
Board certification for anesthesiologists does matter. Again read full studies. This was one of the few variables that was found to affect surgical outcomes.
 
Board certification for anesthesiologists does matter. Again read full studies. This was one of the few variables that was found to affect surgical outcomes.
Interesting thread so far but I don't care much for anesthesia. I'm referring to pain boards. I keep getting dragged back into it for some reason.

So far, no one has really produced anything other than opinions for pain management comparison. The studies that show increased opioid prescribing, I imagine, will result in their organizations responding just like we did with a resultant decrease in prescriptions. I also imagine that their training will eventually incorporate interventional pain if it doesn't already. I'm not sure if they do fellowships but I know PAs did a lot of the Ortho surgeries during one of my ortho rotations so there must be specialized tracks for them. It's just a matter of time for them to incorporate pain training.

They're here and they're not leaving. My patients tell me their primary providers are NPs and the pts don't care or even question it. If the pts are happy with their care referring docs will not care what the degree is either. Some of the studies I posted show that patients are happier with them. Lack of health care providers means governments are more likely to give them more power.

Now that I'm thinking about this more, even if someone produced a study showing that their pain care was less effective than ours it probably still wouldn't matter. The most important thing to the patient is the perception of whether or not they receive good care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Interesting thread so far but I don't care much for anesthesia. I'm referring to pain boards. I keep getting dragged back into it for some reason.

So far, no one has really produced anything other than opinions for pain management comparison. The studies that show increased opioid prescribing, I imagine, will result in their organizations responding just like we did with a resultant decrease in prescriptions. I also imagine that their training will eventually incorporate interventional pain if it doesn't already. I'm not sure if they do fellowships but I know PAs did a lot of the Ortho surgeries during one of my ortho rotations so there must be specialized tracks for them. It's just a matter of time for them to incorporate pain training.

They're here and they're not leaving. My patients tell me their primary providers are NPs and the pts don't care or even question it. If the pts are happy with their care referring docs will not care what the degree is either. Some of the studies I posted show that patients are happier with them. Lack of health care providers means governments are more likely to give them more power.

Now that I'm thinking about this more, even if someone produced a study showing that their pain care was less effective than ours it probably still wouldn't matter. The most important thing to the patient is the perception of whether or not they receive good care.
Why stop there? Why just allow nurses to practice independently as doctors? Why not medical assistants or nurses aids? Or why don’t we have a fast track right out if college for the independent practice of medicine. You and the major nursing organizations are talking about changing the entire paradigm of how modern medicine is practiced. If a monkey can do what we do then why don’t we let those with GREs do it? Or is it just nurses you favor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not making that argument. I'm not saying they're better by any means. I'm also not saying I'm better. I posted those studies in response to a post. They mean little to me. What I am saying is that most things are learned on the job and training only gets you so far. It comes down to the individual and any NP or PA, can become a better pain provider than a physician. Those studies show that they're equally effective in what was looked at. Whether or not you like it or not, the reality is that they're here and they're your competition. I don't mind it and don't feel threatened by it.

If you don't feel that they have the ability to be as effective as a provider as you are, then you should have nothing to worry about.
Sounds to me like someone wishes deep down they should have become a mid-level practitioner. Why then did YOU bother going to medical school to become a doctor? For someone who is so proud of their practice efficiency, becoming a doctor seems like such an inefficient use of your time and resources given the fact that you feel a mid-level can do it just as well. If you were 'really smart' you would have taken the PA/NP/CRNA route to practice pain management independently - you could have shaved 3+ years off of your training. If you don't think that your MD/DO degree is any better than a mid-level practitioner you are more naive than I thought. It's individuals with this apathetic stance that is allowing the mid-level creep to occur throughout the US. Lastly, "I wecome the competition" is the silliest statement I've heard from a practicing physician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It is about quality control.

It is not about the individual.

It is about quality control in the sense that the average MD practices in a more conscientious safe, knowledgeable, and evidence-based approach than the average NP/CRNA.

Just because I can drive around the Block when it is raining does not mean I’m qualified to be a racecar driver. To do so would be a stretch of the imagination and an over statement of my qualifications. True I can drive in the rain. However if you put me on a track watch out.

Again all the training does not necessarily make one person necessarily “better“. However, it ensures that the quality of the average person is higher.

Furthermore, there will be no study for these outcomes which you desire. Ethically you cannot have patients die nor suffer egregious outcomes. This is not a philosophical question this is a matter of life and death and peoples love ones.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let me repeat that – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
The most important thing to the patient is the perception of whether or not they receive good care.
Patient satisfaction is not the most important thing. They don't know any better, so we, as doctors, have to be stewards of their health. Outcomes are what matter, and with subpar medical knowledge and training you're going to see suboptimal outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Sounds to me like someone wishes deep down they should have become a mid-level practitioner. Why then did YOU bother going to medical school to become a doctor? For someone who is so proud of their practice efficiency, becoming a doctor seems like such an inefficient use of your time and resources given the fact that you feel a mid-level can do it just as well. If you were 'really smart' you would have taken the PA/NP/CRNA route to practice pain management independently - you could have shaved 3+ years off of your training. If you don't think that your MD/DO degree is any better than a mid-level practitioner you are more naive than I thought. It's individuals with this apathetic stance that is allowing the mid-level creep to occur throughout the US. Lastly, "I wecome the competition" is the silliest statement I've heard from a practicing physician.

I’m not defending anyone’s stance here but the fact that someone has been able to create this frenzy says a lot about the perceived threat of the midlevel. We can spew anecdotes and find publications supporting either side but none of this is productive (and it’s less entertaining than it started out being). We have no control over what they do, although you can control who you hire or take referrals from. Personally, I have had some good/bad experiences with all types of providers and have recently been impressed by an urgent care appointment with an NP. I’m not sure what it all means but I think it’s natural to trust what we are familiar with and identify with others in the tradition of allopathic medicine. Again, this comparison only exists because we are here talking about it and we might as well make this a comprehensive cluster and compare foot and ankle to podiatry, physiatry vs PT, US trained physicians vs foreign, MD vs DO… Maybe we are bitter about the cost and time expense of our training and if we produce more physicians more efficiently there won’t be a need for more midlevels. Now please, tell me more stories about nurses gone wild…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
2 points:

It is a fallacy to state that the data I posted was biased when you posted studies from a nurse practitioner organization.

The articles showing increased prescribing by APPs derives their data from Medicare information.

They were studies I searched in pubmed, not an MD or NP site.

---

I will agree that APPs can deliver similar quality of care with regards to primary care, and even baseline pain treatment.

But opioid prescribing is not primary care. It is a unique and potentially dangerous treatment regimen with not only patient but societal implications.

Also, patient satisfaction is a driver for many doctors (and APPs) to prescribe inappropriately. That is not a quality care marker...

---
Likewise, I suspect that you do not believe that APPs are as qualified as you to perform epidurals, neurolysis, or vertiflex... they can take weekend courses after all.
 
Why stop there? Why just allow nurses to practice independently as doctors? Why not medical assistants or nurses aids? Or why don’t we have a fast track right out if college for the independent practice of medicine. You and the major nursing organizations are talking about changing the entire paradigm of how modern medicine is practiced. If a monkey can do what we do then why don’t we let those with GREs do it? Or is it just nurses you favor?
This may very well happen. I'm not the one who will be able to draw those lines. I imagine there will be several forces to help shape this. I'm not suggesting anything really change. I'm just noting reality. I'm not really trying to shape it but whatever happens I'm trying to be prepared for it.
Sounds to me like someone wishes deep down they should have become a mid-level practitioner. Why then did YOU bother going to medical school to become a doctor? For someone who is so proud of their practice efficiency, becoming a doctor seems like such an inefficient use of your time and resources given the fact that you feel a mid-level can do it just as well. If you were 'really smart' you would have taken the PA/NP/CRNA route to practice pain management independently - you could have shaved 3+ years off of your training. If you don't think that your MD/DO degree is any better than a mid-level practitioner you are more naive than I thought. It's individuals with this apathetic stance that is allowing the mid-level creep to occur throughout the US. Lastly, "I wecome the competition" is the silliest statement I've heard from a practicing physician.
Not really although I don't care for what letters come after my name. I think it's ridiculous when people put MD, FAAOOAOROA, FABMENE after their names. That goes for midlevels too.
It is about quality control.

It is not about the individual.

It is about quality control in the sense that the average MD practices in a more conscientious safe, knowledgeable, and evidence-based approach than the average NP/CRNA.

Just because I can drive around the Block when it is raining does not mean I’m qualified to be a racecar driver. To do so would be a stretch of the imagination and an over statement of my qualifications. True I can drive in the rain. However if you put me on a track watch out.

Again all the training does not necessarily make one person necessarily “better“. However, it ensures that the quality of the average person is higher.

Furthermore, there will be no study for these outcomes which you desire. Ethically you cannot have patients die nor suffer egregious outcomes. This is not a philosophical question this is a matter of life and death and peoples love ones.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let me repeat that – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Perhaps you're right, I don't know but I imagine that's up in the air as this whole thread pretty much reviewed.
Patient satisfaction is not the most important thing. They don't know any better, so we, as doctors, have to be stewards of their health. Outcomes are what matter, and with subpar medical knowledge and training you're going to see suboptimal outcomes.
The problem with this is that the stewards of their health have a vested interest in it and typically it never ends well when that happens. Perhaps you're also right about the subpar knowledge and training but I also imagine that's controversial.
2 points:

It is a fallacy to state that the data I posted was biased when you posted studies from a nurse practitioner organization.

The articles showing increased prescribing by APPs derives their data from Medicare information.

They were studies I searched in pubmed, not an MD or NP site.

---

I will agree that APPs can deliver similar quality of care with regards to primary care, and even baseline pain treatment.

But opioid prescribing is not primary care. It is a unique and potentially dangerous treatment regimen with not only patient but societal implications.

Also, patient satisfaction is a driver for many doctors (and APPs) to prescribe inappropriately. That is not a quality care marker...

---
Likewise, I suspect that you do not believe that APPs are as qualified as you to perform epidurals, neurolysis, or vertiflex... they can take weekend courses after all.
I didn't say your studies were biased. I said you can find studies to pretty much support any position you want. Who cares where the articles are posted? Of course, the nurses will post a study that supports their agenda. It doesn't negate the study. Give me a second and I'll find a study from PubMed for you.

Okay I'm back. It took less than 30 seconds this time. I can probably find a lot more if you wanted me to.

____________________

Have you not been discussing this thread with me at all? Most of what I learned I learned on the job and others can learn this. It comes down to the individual so yes if they want to learn the procedures they can and they can be just as if not more effective than me. The letters after my name don't change that. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's just me. Perhaps you guys are better doctors than me and they can't outdoctor you. As for me, I try to never underestimate my competition.

Another interesting Hopkins anecdote: Have you heard the famous story of Vivien Thomas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's another one from another 30 seconds of searching?


Just out of curiosity? Where did you learn how to do Vertiflex and how long was your training? Do you do mild too? Was it a weekend course when you were trained in it?
 
Here's another one from another 30 seconds of searching?


Just out of curiosity? Where did you learn how to do Vertiflex and how long was your training? Do you do mild too? Was it a weekend course when you were trained in it?
Vivien Thomas story portrayed by Mos Def in “Something the Lord Made.”

Great movie of the development of the “Blalock-Taussig” shunt, medicine/racism in the early 20th century. I’ll admit I’m biased, as my kid is alive because of a refined version of the procedure.

Obvious threadcrap, but it’s ok if it actually improves the smell of the convo, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think the more important question to ask is do the board exams make you a better health care provider? I'm not so sure of it. It seems like most of the posters here agree as I constantly see people complaining about how useless and unproductive they are.

It seems like standardized tests overall are going the way of the dinosaur.

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying the training is just as good (although really all I'm seeing are opinions from those with a vested interest). I just didn't like the OP's dirty tactics.
Come on man. You are being elusive. You say there is no evidence they aren't as good. Well, we all have to pass these tests that are given a great deal of weight as to our qualifications, whether we like it or not. So if their training is up to snuff as you say, having us all pass the same tests would be one way to eval? Seems fair to me.

MCAT, USMLE steps, board cert exams. ALL of it
 
The problem with "letting the market decide" is that health care in the US is anything BUT a free market system.

If we had a free market system, without cpt codes and near-complete government control of reimbursements (in most practices), I would have no issues with nurse practitioners (or witch doctors for that matter) doing whatever they want, as long as they are transparent about their qualifications.

As it stands, in all but name only, we have socialized medicine in the US. Therefore, we have to argue like socialists. We have to fight for reimbursement, policy, etc.

If you just look at the steaming pile of published reports, you could easily conclude that the best people to prescribe meds independently are PHARMACISTS. That says nothing about their quality or ability. It only speaks to the free time they have to pump out publications.
 
It comes down to the individual so yes if they want to learn the procedures they can and they can be just as if not more effective than me.
It's not just about being able to do a procedure skillfully. It's about having a broad ddx including the zebras, choosing the best procedure, knowing the risks in any particular patient due to knowledge of their comorbidities, knowing what/when not to do something, managing complications, appropriate referrals, etc.

An MD/DO has enough of a base of knowledge/skill to build upon and specialize, add procedures to their repertoire. A mid-level doesn't have the same foundation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
More training doesn't necessarily equate to better outcomes, especially in pain. You guys love the literature so much so let's post some studies which show improved outcomes for pain docs vs NPs. Then we can have a valid argument. I would definitely support that. They must be out there somewhere. Someone less lazy than me care to look?

I haven't looked for pain but I did look at things when my wife was pregnant. Outcomes didn't seem to be any different for MDs, NPs, or midwives. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Everyone should be posted when doing something wrong but it seems that the NP thing is really emphasized such as in the past few posts. No need to ignore. I enjoy standing up to bullying, lol.

Cluelessness. Most midlevels have enough common sense to work under a physician for one. For two, those who don't, typically see simple cases. The lack of knowledge of NPs is frightening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
By your definition of care, the best "pain doctor" could be your neighborhood drug dealer.

Compassionate - if you have money. Knows what will make pain go away - sometimes permanently.
Willing to offer a variety of products in a variety of doses.
Easily accessible at almost any time of day.
Super convenient - just drop by the trap house when you can. No appt needed.
Almost all are self taught or tutored.
"Patient" satisfaction is extremely high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In general, I agree with your free-market view on this subject. Biggest issue I see is patients often don't get a choice in the matter and even if they did, they don't understand the differences. Do you get a choice of your anesthesia provider when getting surgery or are you just stuck with whomever works at surgical site? I used to have a PA at my last pain clinic and many patients called him "Dr. XYZ" because of course he is a doctor, right? My wife recently had a sleep study done and the initial visit was with a NP, we didn't get a choice (I was very upset by that btw).

That being said, let's be honest, most of the time, clinically, any difference isn't really a big deal. Even in anesthesia where we routinely paralyze people and breath for them. Practically, any reasonable mid-level provider with the mind and hands to do so can learn anything procedural. See one, do one, teach one. Most things we do are not rocket science.

However, there IS a difference in some of the mental things we do. In the anesthesia world, differences are in things like did the patient die because the CRNA pushed propofol to intubate during a code or would the patient have just died anyway? Did the patient need 4 anti-emetics (and the potential side effects) for surgery when there were zero PONV risk factors? Was time to discharge 2 hours longer that it had to be? Is the elderly patient's dementia worse because the CRNA gives everyone 2 of Versed whether they have anxiety or not? Did that sickle cell patient have a worse outcome because oxygen tension and fluid balance weren't optimized?

In the pain clinic, did we give unnecessary steroids to the severe osteoporotic patient? Did we cause a fall by using a TCA in the elderly when a different nerve medication would have been a better choice? Was it really radiculopathy and sacroiliitis or was it just the piriformis?

These are things that are difficult to measure, but are real.
Let’s be honest , CRNAs are in a residency for as many years as they practice. The thousands of cases done hands on by a CRNA is exponentially more then an MDA will do. In 25 years contributions by the MDA have been minimal to none except to repeat the same trite information that a 1st year student knows.I love to learn but maybe 5 times in my career did I hear anything remotely interesting that I didn’t already know.I worked in many level one trauma centers and seen residents basically killing patients only to have everyone try to rationalize why it wasn’t their fault, when your in the MD club you are protected until the body count gets to high to ignore.So please stop the bs and understand knowledge is free and abundantly available to everyone , so basically it comes down to the individual. There are great providers and bad on both sides the problem is MDSs when in a room solo get the easiest cases, most are rarely in a room so may never know their skill.
 
Guys, I'm going to jump ship for awhile. I think I've made my points clear and things are likely going to start becoming repetitive and may even take weird turns. The repetition will start giving me and probably many others a headache at this point. You guys can have the last word if you like....... for now, lol

I enjoy debating and appreciate you guys participating btw, especially ducttape. I would have to rank him or her as the opponent with the most intelligent points.
 
Let’s be honest , CRNAs are in a residency for as many years as they practice. The thousands of cases done hands on by a CRNA is exponentially more then an MDA will do. In 25 years contributions by the MDA have been minimal to none except to repeat the same trite information that a 1st year student knows.I love to learn but maybe 5 times in my career did I hear anything remotely interesting that I didn’t already know.I worked in many level one trauma centers and seen residents basically killing patients only to have everyone try to rationalize why it wasn’t their fault, when your in the MD club you are protected until the body count gets to high to ignore.So please stop the bs and understand knowledge is free and abundantly available to everyone , so basically it comes down to the individual. There are great providers and bad on both sides the problem is MDSs when in a room solo get the easiest cases, most are rarely in a room so may never know their skill.
Hm 20 minute old account with first post?

Username does not check out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Let’s be honest , CRNAs are in a residency for as many years as they practice. The thousands of cases done hands on by a CRNA is exponentially more then an MDA will do. In 25 years contributions by the MDA have been minimal to none except to repeat the same trite information that a 1st year student knows.I love to learn but maybe 5 times in my career did I hear anything remotely interesting that I didn’t already know.I worked in many level one trauma centers and seen residents basically killing patients only to have everyone try to rationalize why it wasn’t their fault, when your in the MD club you are protected until the body count gets to high to ignore.So please stop the bs and understand knowledge is free and abundantly available to everyone , so basically it comes down to the individual. There are great providers and bad on both sides the problem is MDSs when in a room solo get the easiest cases, most are rarely in a room so may never know their skill.

My sympathies to your next patient and anybody who works with you. I would say supervise but apparently you know everything.

If the knowledge is freely available to everyone and there are no barriers to learning anesthesia, then why do I need a CRNA or any other mid level provider for that matter to provide it?

What is your point exactly? That anesthesia is bs and can be learned by anybody? Wow what a value proposition! Really striking a blow for the crna against the medical establishment!

But in all seriousness, you are a walking talking out of court settlement check.
 
What is your point exactly? That anesthesia is bs and can be learned by anybody? Wow what a value proposition! Really striking a blow for the crna against the medical establishment!
Anesthesia can be done by anyone, except Anesthesia Assistants. CRNAs hate AAs and will tell you how dangerous they are. It's laughable. It's like RNs who claim they're no different than doctors, but will **** on LPNs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Anesthesia can be done by anyone, except Anesthesia Assistants. CRNAs hate AAs and will tell you how dangerous they are. It's laughable. It's like RNs who claim they're no different than doctors, but will **** on LPNs.

If they had any intelligence regarding the game they were playing, then they wouldn't be playing it. They are under this delusion that they are gonna rule the OR and make all the fictitious MD money they were always entitled to and influence admin. But the reality is eventually AAs will gain practice scope just as they did, Medicare will continue to reimburse garbage, and comm ins is just gonna continue cutting. All while admin find somebody else to do the job.
 
Let’s be honest , CRNAs are in a residency for as many years as they practice. The thousands of cases done hands on by a CRNA is exponentially more then an MDA will do. In 25 years contributions by the MDA have been minimal to none except to repeat the same trite information that a 1st year student knows.I love to learn but maybe 5 times in my career did I hear anything remotely interesting that I didn’t already know.I worked in many level one trauma centers and seen residents basically killing patients only to have everyone try to rationalize why it wasn’t their fault, when your in the MD club you are protected until the body count gets to high to ignore.So please stop the bs and understand knowledge is free and abundantly available to everyone , so basically it comes down to the individual. There are great providers and bad on both sides the problem is MDSs when in a room solo get the easiest cases, most are rarely in a room so may never know their skill.

Hm 20 minute old account with first post?

Username does not check out.
Obviously a CRNA. Only CRNAs call Anesthesiologists "MDAs".

Also, only CRNAs would consider paid work as "training", let alone anywhere close to equivalent to a 4 years of a real residency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Obviously a CRNA. Only CRNAs call Anesthesiologists "MDAs".

Also, only CRNAs would consider paid work as "training", let alone anywhere close to equivalent to a 4 years of a real residency.
They should be required to take the ABA oral boards before being licensed. Not pass them, because I seriously doubt that’s possible except for the most top notch contenders, but just feel the terror and pressure of being in that seat, and learn to respect just how much they don’t know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the above post by first time poster clearly demonstrates that she is not doing continuing education.

this should be a warning for those who preach that once they are boarded then they should not have to learn ever again.

even in the past month, there are new studies and information on pain medicine, anesthesiology, emergency medicine that i have learned. say what you will, yes i am indubitably dumber and retain less the restl of you (above poster excepted)

medicine is not just pent/sux/tube, its an unending endeavor to better ourselves so we can provide the safest care for our patients.



reading that post again - i wonder if the fact that the poster hasnt learned anything new is because he/she is put in the room with the easiest cases in order to protect patients...
 
tthey don't know what they don't know
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Patient satisfaction is not the most important thing. They don't know any better, so we, as doctors, have to be stewards of their health. Outcomes are what matter, and with subpar medical knowledge and training you're going to see suboptimal outcomes.
This. 100%. I don't prescribe based on patient satisfaction and happiness level or to keep referring sources happy.
 
So if the training is just as good, you are comfortable having CRNAs, NPs, and PAs passing the same board exams as MD/DO?

The other factor when looking at outcomes is triage. In most clinics and hospitals, there is triage right? The MD gets the harder pts, the most complex, etc.
Let’s do it if third world doctors with a medical library as big as a closet can do it I’m sure it’s no problem
 
This is an anecdotal story from today at work (Anesthesia). Before you crucify me, I have zero control over the SRNA/CRNA policy at the hospital I also work at.

SRNA attempts CSE for a c-section x3 attempts, no luck. Experienced CRNA comes in to bail her out, also no luck after multiple attempts. I put my gloves on and it's done in 30 seconds. This type of thing happens all the time but is impossible to discover and be available for any study. Was patient care affected? Yes and no. CSE still got done and surgery went off without a hitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This is an anecdotal story from today at work (Anesthesia). Before you crucify me, I have zero control over the SRNA/CRNA policy at the hospital I also work at.

SRNA attempts CSE for a c-section x3 attempts, no luck. Experienced CRNA comes in to bail her out, also no luck after multiple attempts. I put my gloves on and it's done in 30 seconds. This type of thing happens all the time but is impossible to discover and be available for any study. Was patient care affected? Yes and no. CSE still got done and surgery went off without a hitch.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the problem was? Inability to distinguish tactile changes and fear of advancing too far?
 
Top