Nurse practitioners filling care void

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

hope12

Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Nurse practitioners filling care void
By JOANN LOVIGLIO, Associated Press Writer
KENNETT SQUARE, Pa. - Marguerite Harris and her staff of eight provide prenatal care and child immunizations, write prescriptions, and diagnose and treat ailments from diabetes to the sniffles.
Though it may sound like a typical doctor's office, no one on staff at Project Salud is a doctor. The medical center is run by nurse practitioners — registered nurses with specialized training and advanced degrees — whose numbers have risen from 30,000 in 1990 to 115,000 today.
Increasingly, patients are being treated by health care professionals with N.P. after their name instead of M.D. or D.O. Nurse-managed primary care centers such as Project Salud have increased to about 250 nationwide today, from a small handful 15 years ago.
"We've come a long way since the early days, the knockdown drag-outs with doctors who thought we were overstepping our roles," said Harris, a nurse practitioner at the Philadelphia-area medical center since 1974.
The change is attributed to factors that include a drop in the number of doctors choosing primary care as their specialty, a falloff expected to continue.
According to the American College of Physicians, medical school surveys showed that from 1998 to 2005, the percentage of third-year residents intending to pursue careers in general internal medicine dropped from 54 percent to 20 percent. Many new doctors, saddled with high student loans, are choosing more lucrative specialties.
The supply of general practice physicians is falling just as the baby boomer population is aging and in greater need of medical care, and nurse-run medical centers are helping to bridge the gap.
Nurse practitioners first appeared about 40 years ago in pediatrics, and quickly expanded into obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, and adult primary care.
They can perform many of the duties of primary care doctors such as performing physical exams, diagnosing and treating common health problems, prescribing medications, ordering and interpreting X-rays, and providing family planning services.
However, some physicians' groups are concerned about the trend.
The American Medical Association is against giving full autonomy to nurse practitioners, stating as its official policy position that a physician should be supervising nurse practitioners at all times and in all settings. An AMA spokeswoman said the association would not provide additional comment on its position.
"There is an element within the physician community that gets a little antsy. ... They think it's going to take away revenue and business from them," said Dr. Jan Towers, director of health policy for the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. "Really, there's more than enough for everybody."
Some patients say they're more satisfied with the less rushed, more holistic style of care they receive from nurse practitioners.
"It got to the point where my doctor was in such a hurry, he wouldn't even look me in the face," said Diane Gass, a North Philadelphia resident who has been a patient at her neighborhood nurse-run health center since it opened about a decade ago.
Gass, 61, said her nurse practitioner took four hours during the first visit taking her medical history and getting to know her.
"For years the doctor was treating me for ulcers, but I was in such pain," she recalled. "The nurse kept asking me questions about the pain and about my medical history, and we got to the bottom of what was really going on: I had a gallstone."
One outpatient procedure later, Gass' gallstone — and her chronic pain — were gone for good.
A 2000 study in the

Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that patients who receive primary care from nurse practitioners fare just as well as those treated by doctors and report similar levels of satisfaction with their care.
Nurse practitioners also have steadily been gaining greater acceptance by insurers and in most states. In about half of the states, nurse practitioners — who frequently have lower fees for office visits than doctors — are now recognized by insurance carriers as primary care physicians.
In all but seven states, they can practice either independently or with remote collaboration with doctors. In all states except Georgia, they have some level of independent authority to prescribe medications; some states do prohibit nurse practitioners from prescribing narcotics.
"One of the statistics that stands out is that we (nurse practitioners) see our patients twice as often as similar practices of physicians," said Tine Hansen-Turton, executive director of the National Nursing Centers Consortium, a Philadelphia-based industry group. "Doing primary care well is the foundation for saving health care dollars — working on improving health early instead of, for example, paying for coronary surgery and bypasses later."

Members don't see this ad.
 
hope12 said:
In about half of the states, nurse practitioners — who frequently have lower fees for office visits than doctors — are now recognized by insurance carriers as primary care physicians.


This is absolutely outrageous. Now you can be a "physician" without ever going to medical school.

Dont tell me thats just symbolic either. Nurses are expert at using loopholes to further their status.

We are just one step away from state laws being changed to give NPs full status as "physicians" in every legal sense of hte word.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
And how horrible would that be?
 
MacGyver said:
This is absolutely outrageous. Now you can be a "physician" without ever going to medical school.

Dont tell me thats just symbolic either. Nurses are expert at using loopholes to further their status.

We are just one step away from state laws being changed to give NPs full status as "physicians" in every legal sense of hte word.

You can be outraged if you will. It was the MDs who rushed away from primary care en masse in order to try to stay ahead of managed care cutting into their fat paychecks. This is the result. People stepped up to fill the void. Who better than a nurse practitioner? Or should we just have an orderly do it?

If NPs start doing surgery or other invasive procedures, that will be the time for outrage and alarm IMO.
 
"interpreting x-rays"......

What a joke.
 
Yeah and explain to me how North Philadelphia is medically underserved and there is some void being filled there. Last I checked there was a University hospital on every corner in North Phila.
 
twester said:
You can be outraged if you will. It was the MDs who rushed away from primary care en masse in order to try to stay ahead of managed care cutting into their fat paychecks. This is the result. People stepped up to fill the void. Who better than a nurse practitioner? Or should we just have an orderly do it?

If NPs start doing surgery or other invasive procedures, that will be the time for outrage and alarm IMO.
So the time for outrage is always down the road?

If NPs are being "recognized" as primary care physicians then they would be able to perform all of the functions of a PMD. A PMD can admit to a hospital and do procedures like intubation, central lines, chest tubes and so on. In the office PMDs do laceration repair, I&Ds, etc. Often PMDs (particularly FPs) will do OB/GYN including endometrial biopsies, deliveries and other invasive procedures like vasectomies, skin biopsies and so on.

If your answer back to that is something along the lines of "Well, they can work as PMDs in the community but they can't do the big procedures." Then you'll need to list every procedure that they can and can't do. It will all be academic anyway. If they are PMDs then the rest of the dominos will fall. It's really just a question of when.
 
docB said:
So the time for outrage is always down the road?

If NPs are being "recognized" as primary care physicians then they would be able to perform all of the functions of a PMD. A PMD can admit to a hospital and do procedures like intubation, central lines, chest tubes and so on. In the office PMDs do laceration repair, I&Ds, etc. Often PMDs (particularly FPs) will do OB/GYN including endometrial biopsies, deliveries and other invasive procedures like vasectomies, skin biopsies and so on.

If your answer back to that is something along the lines of "Well, they can work as PMDs in the community but they can't do the big procedures." Then you'll need to list every procedure that they can and can't do. It will all be academic anyway. If they are PMDs then the rest of the dominos will fall. It's really just a question of when.

i think his point was that you can be outraged all you want. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is going to do what is necessary to improve primary health care.
 
MacGyver said:
This is absolutely outrageous. Now you can be a "physician" without ever going to medical school.

Dont tell me thats just symbolic either. Nurses are expert at using loopholes to further their status.

We are just one step away from state laws being changed to give NPs full status as "physicians" in every legal sense of hte word.
I agree. In no way to NP's have the training of an all around physician. I think they are a neccesity to the profession. My ob/gyn was a NP but she just did routine checkups. When ever something came back abnormal I had to see the DOCTOR. I think they are valuable IN THEIR place. Kinda sucks that now the 7 years plus spent in medicine you can get with a RN plus 2 years in a masters program. Last I checked nursing and medicine were different professions ... And this is someone who is considering/has considered an NP program in a specialized field vs MD/DO. I'm not bashing the nurses I'm just wondering all this fight for autonomy isn't really justified. yes they can operate to an extent as a physician but only for general cases. They need some sort of physician in practice as they are not trained to do everything.
 
hospitalistpac said:
Yeah and explain to me how North Philadelphia is medically underserved and there is some void being filled there. Last I checked there was a University hospital on every corner in North Phila.
Yeah when I read that I thought that as well. But hospital doesn't equal primary care ... unless they use the ER. Which at least now that eases part of it if they are using the clinic.
 
Empress said:
And how horrible would that be?

Look at it this way:

suppose I went thru a new training program where I spent 2 years after high school learning nursing, and then I get to call myself a "nurse practioner" and have full legal scope of practice as a full blown NP.

do you think the NPs wouldnt be outraged by that? Of course they would. They would fight such a program to teh bitter end.
 
I think it was Helen Keller who said, "The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next."
 
Members don't see this ad :)
quote took four hours during the first visit taking her medical history and getting to know her. quote

:confused:
Umm, they can't be that busy or making any money if they take 4 hours to do an H&P.
I'm a PA and I'm supposed to be on "their team" but that whol article is just BS and misleading. I see an NP for ob-gyn too but I out of principal I would not go to an NP run clinic
 
hospitalistpac said:
Umm, they can't be that busy or making any money if they take 4 hours to do an H&P.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to be paying the bills seeing only two patients in the course of an eight-hour day, even if they code level 5 office visits.

Not only that, but it took four hours for her to come up with the idea to (presumably) order a RUQ U/S on a patient with upper digestive pain that was unresponsive to PPI therapy? Please...I could've figured that one out in about four seconds. :rolleyes:
 
KentW said:
Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to be paying the bills seeing only two patients in the course of an eight-hour day, even if they code level 5 office visits.

Not only that, but it took four hours for her to come up with the idea to (presumably) order a RUQ U/S on a patient with upper digestive pain that was unresponsive to PPI therapy? Please...I could've figured that one out in about four seconds. :rolleyes:

yeah what the hell? Even our ridiculously detailed med student H&Ps on complicated inpatients only take an hour...
 
Eventually the NPs will have the same problems that the docs do. They'll want to see a certain number of patients per hour to get a certain income. They will gravitiate toward more lucrative areas and leave less other areas underserved. Once they are made into primary care "physicians" is there any reason at all to expect that in time they won't have the same problems that the current primary care physicians have had? Right now they say that they are vital because they are willing to do the work that PMDs won't do. They are essentially makihg the illegal alien argument in a medical context. Once they are established what new group of even less trained, cheaper, more willing to do the dirty work "providers" will pop up?
 
docB said:
So the time for outrage is always down the road?

If NPs are being "recognized" as primary care physicians then they would be able to perform all of the functions of a PMD. A PMD can admit to a hospital and do procedures like intubation, central lines, chest tubes and so on. In the office PMDs do laceration repair, I&Ds, etc. Often PMDs (particularly FPs) will do OB/GYN including endometrial biopsies, deliveries and other invasive procedures like vasectomies, skin biopsies and so on.

NPs already do all of these except for vasectomies...I'm not sure about endometrial bx. Heck, I did some of these as a ARMY medic!
 
zenman said:
NPs already do all of these except for vasectomies...I'm not sure about endometrial bx. Heck, I did some of these as a ARMY medic!
Duly noted. I was responding to someone else who felt that the time for outrage would be when NPs were doing invasive procedures.
twester said:
If NPs start doing surgery or other invasive procedures, that will be the time for outrage and alarm IMO.
But what's your point? The reason that medics and corpsmen are trained to do these is that they need to be ready to do them without supervision during a crisis/battle/etc. The military uses them for primary care because it's cheap and they have a captive patient base.
 
docB said:
The military uses them for primary care because it's cheap and they have a captive patient base.

They also have a relatively young and healthy patient base who can't sue for malpractice.
 
Before the flames start let me point out that I am actually pretty ambivalent about the whole midlevel thing. I think that they should be supervised by a physician. I think that the title of “physician” should be reserved for physicians. I like it when there is more primary care because it keeps the silliness level down in my ED. I don’t like getting patients sent in by midlevels because they don’t admit and then I have to argue with a doc about admitting them.

Midlevels are definitely here to stay. As they gain more autonomy and authority under CMS they will actually squeeze out doctoral level PMDs so that the overall level of primary care will stay stagnant for a while before they supplant PMDs altogether. It will likely take 1-2 generations for people to get used to never seeing a doctor unless they get referred to a specialist. Is this good, bad or indifferent? It doesn’t matter. If it’s cheaper (even if it’s only cheaper in the short term) it will happen.

What I don’t want to see is a lot of docs sitting around thinking that midlevels are going to work their way up to a certain point and then go no further. That’s just not going to happen. The genie is out. The timeline is all that’s left to see about.
 
docB said:
Before the flames start let me point out that I am actually pretty ambivalent about the whole midlevel thing. I think that they should be supervised by a physician. I think that the title of “physician” should be reserved for physicians. I like it when there is more primary care because it keeps the silliness level down in my ED. I don’t like getting patients sent in by midlevels because they don’t admit and then I have to argue with a doc about admitting them.

Midlevels are definitely here to stay. As they gain more autonomy and authority under CMS they will actually squeeze out doctoral level PMDs so that the overall level of primary care will stay stagnant for a while before they supplant PMDs altogether. It will likely take 1-2 generations for people to get used to never seeing a doctor unless they get referred to a specialist. Is this good, bad or indifferent? It doesn’t matter. If it’s cheaper (even if it’s only cheaper in the short term) it will happen.

What I don’t want to see is a lot of docs sitting around thinking that midlevels are going to work their way up to a certain point and then go no further. That’s just not going to happen. The genie is out. The timeline is all that’s left to see about.

Seems like the ER would be a likely place for NPs to try to practice along with primary care. What are your thoughts about this?
 
TBforme said:
Seems like the ER would be a likely place for NPs to try to practice along with primary care. What are your thoughts about this?
My group uses midlevels now. This is becoming more widespread and is soon to be the rule rather than the exception. I am OK with it when the midlevels are supervised.
 
docB said:
As they gain more autonomy and authority under CMS they will actually squeeze out doctoral level PMDs so that the overall level of primary care will stay stagnant for a while before they supplant PMDs altogether. It will likely take 1-2 generations for people to get used to never seeing a doctor unless they get referred to a specialist. Is this good, bad or indifferent? It doesn’t matter. If it’s cheaper (even if it’s only cheaper in the short term) it will happen.
.


Agree with everything you said, except one thing. There is an implicit assumption in your post that midlevels either cant or wont seek to compete against specialists. IF the DNP programs become standard, and they start adding DNP residency programs like the AANP and the AACN want, then the specialties are at risk too.

Everything is at risk here, not just primary care.
 
MacGyver said:
Agree with everything you said, except one thing. There is an implicit assumption in your post that midlevels either cant or wont seek to compete against specialists. IF the DNP programs become standard, and they start adding DNP residency programs like the AANP and the AACN want, then the specialties are at risk too.

Everything is at risk here, not just primary care.

Exactly. AMA and AOA want to run nonphysicians and hold MDs and DOs out as being superior. Problem is that the nursing profession is independently regulated and will continue pursuing primary care and specialty practice. NPs have independent prescriptive authority in some states.

A group of nonphysician providers (forgot the name), including nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, psychologists, etc, has formed to pursue broader scope-of-practice, with the goal to allow patients to decide from whom they want to receive their healthcare. Times are a'changing, folks.
 
PublicHealth said:
A group of nonphysician providers (forgot the name), including nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, psychologists, etc, has formed to pursue broader scope-of-practice, with the goal to allow patients to decide from whom they want to receive their healthcare. Times are a'changing, folks.

I don't understand currently why patient's will accept seeing a lesser-trained mid-level provider at the same cost as seeing a fully trained physician. I never understood that. As a patient, if you are paying the same price for health coverage as another person who is being seen by a doctor, then why would you settle for anything less? I'd like to think most patients with significant health concerns will choose the phyisician if faced with a choice, all other things being equal.

I think far too many patient's for too long have gone to their doctor, thinking they were going to see an actual doctor, and consistently saw a mid-level instead, and thus the distinction has been blurred. I tend to agree somewhat with the previous post that suggested that M.D.'s and D.O. have brought some of this on themselves.
 
McDoctor said:
I don't understand currently why patient's will accept seeing a lesser-trained mid-level provider at the same cost as seeing a fully trained physician. I never understood that. As a patient, if you are paying the same price for health coverage as another person who is being seen by a doctor, then why would you settle for anything less? I'd like to think most patients with significant health concerns will choose the phyisician if faced with a choice, all other things being equal.

I think far too many patient's for too long have gone to their doctor, thinking they were going to see an actual doctor, and consistently saw a mid-level instead, and thus the distinction has been blurred. I tend to agree somewhat with the previous post that suggested that M.D.'s and D.O. have brought some of this on themselves.

some insurance plans(and medicare) only pay 85% of the md/do rate for a visit or procedure done by a midlevel even if it the same procedure an md/do would have done( for example treadmill, vasectomy, prostate biopsy, 1st assist in the o.r., etc). most midlevels will also work for 1/3 to 2/3 what the md/do they work for makes so there is a cost savings to the practice vs hiring another md/do(assuming productivity is the same) and there is a savings to the pt as they are billed less for their visit or procedure. everyone is happy.for those of you who are unhappy with "independent np's" remember that pa's always work with physicians, are trained in the medical model,are regulated by and accountable to medical boards(not nursing boards) and can't work without a supervising physician(they can hire a supervising doc and open their own clinic but that is fairly rare), so they are less of a threat to the medical establishment.....
 
emedpa said:
some insurance plans(and medicare) only pay 85% of the md/do rate for a visit or procedure done by a midlevel even if it the same procedure an md/do would have done( for example treadmill, vasectomy, prostate biopsy, 1st assist in the o.r., etc). most midlevels will also work for 1/3 to 2/3 what the md/do they work for makes so there is a cost savings to the practice vs hiring another md/do(assuming productivity is the same) and there is a savings to the pt as they are billed less for their visit or procedure. everyone is happy.for those of you who are unhappy with "independent np's" remember that pa's always work with physicians, are trained in the medical model,are regulated by and accountable to medical boards(not nursing boards) and can't work without a supervising physician(they can hire a supervising doc and open their own clinic but that is fairly rare), so they are less of a threat to the medical establishment.....

I think this is completely reasonable. However, in the managed care scenario, I don't think the patient is aware of the difference in reimbursement and nor do I think the savings is in any way being passed on to the patient.
 
how hard can it be to read read xrays?
 
MacGyver said:
This is absolutely outrageous. Now you can be a "physician" without ever going to medical school.

Dont tell me thats just symbolic either. Nurses are expert at using loopholes to further their status.

We are just one step away from state laws being changed to give NPs full status as "physicians" in every legal sense of hte word.


Some of these DUCKtors are quacks. you go in the see them, they ask whats wrong, they then write you a perscirption for anti-biotics. how hard can it be.
 
McDoctor said:
I think this is completely reasonable. However, in the managed care scenario, I don't think the patient is aware of the difference in reimbursement and nor do I think the savings is in any way being passed on to the patient.
agree that hmo's do not pass on the savings directly, but in theory using midlevels decreases the overall healthcare cost to the system, so there is a savings-whether it goes to lower rates or bonuses for the ceo I couldn't tell you..
in the hmo setting the advantage of adding a midlevel to the practice is access.
pt calls with benign sounding complaint-
receptionist: "well, dr smith is booked out for 2 weeks or you can see the pa he works with, mr martin in 2 days. which would you like?"
pt who really wants doc: ahh, I'll wait 2 weeks to see dr smith"
pt who doesn't care who refills his zyrtec: "ahh, ok the pa is fine"
I have worked with the largest hmo in the country(kaiser) and this is how they handle scheduling midlevels there. if you want an md/do/pa/np as your pcp they can accomodate these requests. some sites also have folks with pa/nd and pa/L.ac training. and for ob care you can always pick an md/do or a midwife with md backup, whatever your preference.
(here ends the nonpaid advertisement for kp :) )
 
emedpa said:
agree that hmo's do not pass on the savings directly, but in theory using midlevels decreases the overall healthcare cost to the system, so there is a savings-whether it goes to lower rates or bonuses for the ceo I couldn't tell you..
in the hmo setting the advantage of adding a midlevel to the practice is access.
pt calls with benign sounding complaint-
receptionist: "well, dr smith is booked out for 2 weeks or you can see the pa he works with, mr martin in 2 days. which would you like?"
pt who really wants doc: ahh, I'll wait 2 weeks to see dr smith"
pt who doesn't care who refills his zyrtec: "ahh, ok the pa is fine"
I have worked with the largest hmo in the country(kaiser) and this is how they handle scheduling midlevels there. if you want an md/do/pa/np as your pcp they can accomodate these requests. some sites also have folks with pa/nd and pa/L.ac training. and for ob care you can always pick an md/do or a midwife with md backup, whatever your preference.
(here ends the nonpaid advertisement for kp :) )


Remember that training is only one input for quality. Others include how quickly the person can see you, as you mention, and the amount of time they spend with you. Also, NPs will get continuing on the job training for whatever they're doing specifically.
 
emedpa said:
agree that hmo's do not pass on the savings directly, but in theory using midlevels decreases the overall healthcare cost to the system, so there is a savings-whether it goes to lower rates or bonuses for the ceo I couldn't tell you..
in the hmo setting the advantage of adding a midlevel to the practice is access.
pt calls with benign sounding complaint-
receptionist: "well, dr smith is booked out for 2 weeks or you can see the pa he works with, mr martin in 2 days. which would you like?"
pt who really wants doc: ahh, I'll wait 2 weeks to see dr smith"
pt who doesn't care who refills his zyrtec: "ahh, ok the pa is fine"
I have worked with the largest hmo in the country(kaiser) and this is how they handle scheduling midlevels there. if you want an md/do/pa/np as your pcp they can accomodate these requests. some sites also have folks with pa/nd and pa/L.ac training. and for ob care you can always pick an md/do or a midwife with md backup, whatever your preference.
(here ends the nonpaid advertisement for kp :) )
I agree that allied health professionals would be more accessible to patients.
However, Kaiser like other HMOs has been known, in the past, to have pressured primary care physicians not to refer patients to specialists. It is possible and probable that HMOs will exercise the same pressure on allied professionals, decreasing the probability that patients will ever be seen by a physician at all.
 
Jon Snow said:
This is primary care. For the most part, primary care docs don't really appear to do much. Often, patients already know what they want when they do to a primary care doc. Someone comes in with a bad cold, they want a decongestant, maybe an antibiotic, maybe some cough medicine so they can sleep/work whatever, and to be done with it. Most of the time, even if the cold is something else, the primary care doc isn't going to assess it. They'll just assume it's a garden variety issue unless something bad happens. A nurse practitioner can prescribe cough medicine and whatever without much problem. Hell, many patients could select the prescription they wanted safely in my opinion.
You're disrespecting primary care. I respect their field as much as others, but they went through considerable training and I respect them for that. If you think you can do your PCPs job just as well as or better than he, take it up with your own primary care physician. ala Donald Trump "You're Fired."
 
Jon Snow said:
I could handle my PCPs job (for my issues) just as well as they. They essentially serve a rubber stamp role.

Boy, do I wish you could follow me around for a day.

You probably think you can fix your car, too, simply because you know where the gas cap and dipstick are located. :rolleyes:
 
armynavy said:
how hard can it be to read read xrays?

It's very easy. Just look at the pictures and make up stuff. MRI's/ CT's/ US's and PET-CT's......child's play.
Why is there even a residency?
 
Jon Snow said:
This is primary care. For the most part, primary care docs don't really appear to do much. Often, patients already know what they want when they do to a primary care doc. Someone comes in with a bad cold, they want a decongestant, maybe an antibiotic, maybe some cough medicine so they can sleep/work whatever, and to be done with it. Most of the time, even if the cold is something else, the primary care doc isn't going to assess it. They'll just assume it's a garden variety issue unless something bad happens. A nurse practitioner can prescribe cough medicine and whatever without much problem. Hell, many patients could select the prescription they wanted safely in my opinion.



Is this idiot for real? These FP's did well in college, were accepted to competitive medical schools, graduated, and did an additional 3 year residency. I know that FP residencies aren't seen as competitive but these guys/ gals diagnose the most simple to the most complicated. Guys like KentW above will forget more than you know. Living in the land of the ignorant. Antibiotics for colds...*******.
 
mshheaddoc said:
I don't think many realize the scope of a family practicioner. They think its all the aches/pains and colds when there is truly so much more.

Like what?
 
Jon Snow said:
LOL. You don't know FPs that prescribe antibiotics for cold symptoms? I know they're mostly viral, but that doesn't stop the prescriptions.

What's your argument here, Jon? That somebody with less training (an NP working in a Wal-Mart clinic, for example) will be less likely to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics? GMAFB.

Most of us actually try very hard to avoid prescribing antibiotics unnecessarily. When you come up with a foolproof test to distinguish between a viral and a bacterial infection, you let us know, m'kay? :rolleyes:
 
Jon Snow said:
I'm not a physician, so I'm approaching this particular issue from a patient perspective. Having dealt with primary care in multiple states/institutions, yes I think I could handle my PCPs job (for my issues) just as well as they. They essentially serve a rubber stamp role.

I'm glad you understand your issues and play an essential part in your own healthcare :) However, as a self-admitted "non-physician", you give PCPs too little credit

Let's say you show up to PCP for a regular appointment and your BP is 206/106. How would you respond (as the PCP)?


Let's say a patient dx with DM2 2 years ago shows up for follow-up labs. Her A1C a year ago was 8.4. She's on actos and "i promise I'll exercise more and eat healthier". Today her A1C is 9.4. What would you do?

A mom calls. Her 3 week old newborn keeps crying. Nothing seems to calm him down. Mom thinks he feels hot but has not taken a temperature yet. What is going through your mind at this point?

A 55 year old obese male comes to you complaining of chest pain. It is a sharp burning pain that is mostly around his left breast area. It woke him up from sleep. It got better 5-10 minutes after he woke up and sat. This has been occuring every night for the last week and he's concern that he might be having a heart attack. Is he right?



*The purpose of this post is to show that PCP is more than just "you have a cold, here's amoxicillin. you have a rash ... here's a steroid. you have allergies ... here's some flonase and claritin." These are typical cases seen everyday at your typical PCP's office. Hopefully any PCP, NP, PA, or 3rd year students will know the correct response to these situations.
 
PublicHealth said:
Like what?
You know what an internal medicine doctor does? The FP supposedly has the training for adults and children while internal med docs only learn for adults. There are some FP's I know who deliver high risk babies, work strictly in a hospital, just have their private office to see patients for wellness, etc. They are general practioners who are trained to do mostly everything in residency. But many might not hone those skills to use in everyday practice.
 
docB said:
But what's your point? The reason that medics and corpsmen are trained to do these is that they need to be ready to do them without supervision during a crisis/battle/etc. The military uses them for primary care because it's cheap and they have a captive patient base.


And we were more expendable than an "expensive" doctor, LOL!
 
After EM, I would seriously consider FM. What the two specialities have in common,which I like, is that they sit at a point in the healthcare system where absolutely anything can walk through the door. Thus it's a true differential diagnosis. Unlike, say, an oncologist who comes to work and asks, "What kind of lung cancer is it?" a FM doctor confronts a person with some symptoms. Or no symptoms. A FM doctor may have to make a catch on a check-up on someone with no presenting symptoms at all. Better take a good history, do a good physical exam, have a wide experience of maladies.

It's unfortunate that specialities are where the money is. Low compensation pushes talented people away from primary care, not a lack of challenge or interesting cases.
 
PublicHealth said:
Like what?

Like all the things you seem to think that a chiropractor does...!

:cool:
 
Jon Snow said:
I'm not a physician, so I'm approaching this particular issue from a patient perspective. Having dealt with primary care in multiple states/institutions, yes I think I could handle my PCPs job (for my issues) just as well as they. They essentially serve a rubber stamp role.

I've worked with family docs on my med school rotations who have managed such things as latent TB, palliative care for cancer patients, venereal diseases, infant colic, burns, MIs, uncontrolled hypertension, disorders of the adrenal and thyroid gland, variants of angina, HIV and AIDS, and performed minor surgical procedures.

Just because you don't have complicated or serious medical problems doesn't mean other people don't. This personal anecdote doesn't make any meaningful difference.
 
Jon Snow said:
What that tells me is that for most patients a primary care MD is not needed unless one has a serious medical condition.

If I ever pick up a chart that says "Jon Snow", you can bet a rectal is so happening. And I have large fingers. ;)

You're a self-admitted lay person, so it maybe some patience is in order for you (along with the DRE). patients with "serious medical conditions" don't care signs identifying themselves as such. You'll need SEVERAL YEARS of training/experience to safely identify these patients as an independant provider. NP's want to (in my book) bypass patient safety for autonomous practice. This concerns me greatly.

As someone who won't be doing primary care, I have the utmost repsect for those who do. Family medicine might not be competitive, but it isn't easy to practice. Until you're in their shoes, you have no clue who needs to see a doc and who doesn't. I would suggets some respect is in order.
 
Jon Snow said:
What that tells me is that for most patients a primary care MD is not needed unless one has a serious medical condition.

I've picked up diabetes and Addison's disease in teenagers, removed melanomas from people in their twenties, found breast cancer in women in their thirties, and colorectal cancer in people in their forties. None of these patients came in thinking they had a "serious medical condition."

So...who's the best person to determine whether somebody has a "serious medical condition"...the patient, a midlevel provider, or a board-certified physician?

Before you answer, that's a rhetorical question. :rolleyes:
 
Top