Nurse Practitioners' shot across the bow...

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

AFSmiley

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
296
Reaction score
3
Just got this in an e-mail from Texas Assoc. of Family Physicians.

And so it begins.......:smuggrin:

This appeared in the Austin American Statesman on Sunday.
Nurse practitioners on the rise
Health care overhaul opens doors for more cost-efficient primary care providers



Timothy Knettler, MBA, is chief executive officer of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners (AANP

If the American system of health care were a patient, the patient would be on life-support. What is the prescription that will help restore this system to a healthy state? Change is needed. But exactly what change is on the horizon? While some may choose to ignore the health care crisis, many cannot afford to.

Nationally, the passage of the Affordable Care Act — the broadest health care overhaul since the 1965 creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs — gives health care providers and those needing health care more options. It also brings recognition to the role of the nurse practitioner as an expert provider of primary care to people of all ages and all walks of life.

In addition to providing money for health promotion and disease prevention, so important for patients of nurse practitioners, the legislation funds nurse-managed primary care clinics and promotes the full participation of nurse practitioners as care providers in a variety of programs, such as accountable care organizations and community-based primary care programs.

It also sanctions nurse practitioners to lead independence-at-home practices for homebound patients, and leads the way to recognizing nurse practitioner practices as medical homes. Patient-centered medical homes — a team-based treatment model that emphasizes comprehensive, preventive care aided by seamless electronic records — are among the innovative approaches that the new federal law seeks to nurture with financial and regulatory incentives.

Today there are more than 140,000 nurse practitioners nationally with over 8,000 licensed in the state of Texas. Nurse practitioners are expert clinicians who, in addition to diagnosing and managing acute and chronic illnesses, emphasize health promotion and disease prevention, guiding patients to make smarter health and lifestyle choices that may ultimately reduce health care costs.

Nurse practitioners can perform many of the same functions that physicians perform more cost-effectively without compromising quality of service. They provide primary, acute and specialty care, with the majority working in primary care. Nurse practitioners are increasingly choosing primary care over specialty care.

The expansion of health coverage to 6 million more Texans will overload a system already strained, particularly in rural areas. According to the Office of Rural Community Affairs and the Department of State Health Services, 244 of the 254 counties in Texas are completely or partially designated as having a medically underserved population.

Texas is one of only four states that require a "supervising" physician be on the premises for specified times when care is provided by nurse practitioners. The regulations are the most complex in the nation and require time and money to interpret and follow. Physicians are required to spend time in chart review of nurse practitioners' care, often weeks after the patient visit, rather than providing much-needed care to their individual patients. There is ample evidence that nurse practitioners diagnose and prescribe safely without such oversight.

The problems in rural Texas are compounded. Nationally, 18 percent of nurse practitioners practice in rural areas, compared with 9 percent of physicians in rural practices. Since Texas requires that nurse practitioners have both their prescriptive authority and ability to diagnose delegated to them by a physician and to have a physician present once every 10 business days if they practice in medically underserved sites, it is more difficult for nurse practitioners to fill these gaps. Nurse practitioners have been forced to shut down practices and leave patients with no health care provider when physicians are not willing to meet these requirements.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia allow nurse practitioner practice without physician involvement. A total of 35 states allow nurse practitioners to diagnose and prescribe without physician delegation. No data indicate poorer patient outcomes, nor is there an increase in malpractice claims.

What is the answer for Texans in a state that faces an $18 billion budget shortfall and already ranks last in access to health care and 46th in overall health care by the Commonwealth Foundation?

According to the AARP, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Brookings Institution, the CATO Institute, the Center for American Progress, the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Texas Health Care Policy Council, removing restrictive nurse practitioner practice regulations is a step in the right direction.

Modernizing and simplifying Texas law for nurse practitioners who are already diagnosing and prescribing is an important part of the solution, at no additional cost to Texas.

The Texas Capitol sits in one of the many parts of Texas designated as having a medically underserved population.

Visitors and legislators who pass through the halls of the Capitol in Austin each year have their health care needs met by Tim Flynn, a nurse practitioner who is employed by the State of Texas and is the only one in the country who holds the distinction as the health care provider in charge of the statehouse employees and those who visit the Capitol.

Flynn's practice has grown exponentially, and because the population he serves at the Capitol is pretty well-educated and involved in their own health care, his practice allows him to do what nurse practitioners are known for doing: patient education, health promotion and disease prevention.

Putting it all in perspective is state Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center:

"It amazes me that nurse practitioner Tim Flynn is entrusted by the State of Texas to provide patient care

to all elected officials, even the president when he visits, but could not go to Palmer Events Center after Hurricane Ike to provide care for

refugees because of restrictive regulations on nurse practitioner practice."



What's a nurse practitioner?

According to the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, its members:

• Complete rigorous graduate academic nurse practitioner programs with advanced clinical training well beyond their initial registered nurse preparation

• Diagnose and treat acute and chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, infections and injuries

• Order, perform, supervise and interpret diagnostic tests such as lab work and X-rays

• Prescribe medications and other treatments

• Treat the whole person, not just a symptom or disease

Nursing report online

A summary of ‘The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health,' a recent report by the Institute of Medicine in collaboration with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is available at http://bit.ly/d5tRPw. The full report can be purchased at http://bit.ly/c8ulWU.

Future role of nursing

On Oct. 5, the Institute of Medicine, in collaboration with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, released the report ‘The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health,' a result of a two-year initiative to examine the future role nursing must play in health care in the United States. Its four recommendations have significant implications for nurse practitioners:

• That nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training and not be limited by outdated statutes and regulations.

• That educational programs must continue to expand to meet the health care needs of today.

• That nurses such as nurse practitioners should be full partners with physicians and other health care professionals in designing health care in the United States.

• An improved infrastructure needs to be in place to adequately collect and analyze work force data.

:mad:

Members don't see this ad.
 
Oh, hell no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery

Miniature robotics
As scientists seek to improve the versatility and utility of robotics in surgery, some are attempting to miniaturize the robots. For example, the University of Nebraska Medical Center has led a multi-campus effort to provide collaborative research on mini-robotics among surgeons, engineers and computer scientists. There may also be a day and age where nanorobots may be inserted into peoples bloodstreams to act as General Practitioners, or GPs; Analysing the problem and sending the information back to the hospital. This could one day remove the need of GPs.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Definitely will happen in the future, but it's still a ways off. Students graduating this year will likely be retiring by the time this is widespread.

That being said, I truly believe we are only a few years from continuous ECG telemetry (and other vitals) via smart phones and smart clothing. Nanobots have huge potential (and will probably be the only real cure for cancer), but I think they are a ways off from realizing their true potential.
 
Given the skepticism about pharma and vaccines, I can't imagine people lining up to have nanorobots inserted into their bodies.

If that ever happens, we'll all be dead by then anyway. ;)


They probably would if they were called "narco-robotos"
 
yesterday the oncologist i'm working with was in a meeting so he left me with the nurse practitioner. At the end of an initial family meeting the daughter asked "so who is the oncologist", the NP seemed confused and said well i'm a nurse practitioner and i'll be your father's care provider. The daughter said "ok, well who is the dr who will be reviewing your chart?". The NP was visibly annoyed and said "i review my own charts". The daughter wasn't pleased. I don't think they'll be seeing her again. It's unfortunate that when it's cancer they want the best, the doctor, but when it's primary care anyone will suffice.
 
It's unfortunate that when it's cancer they want the best, the doctor, but when it's primary care anyone will suffice.

Not necessarily. I've picked up lots of patients who told me that the main reason they changed practices was because they kept getting seen by mid-levels, and rarely got to see "their doctor."

Frankly, I don't blame 'em. As far as I'm concerned, promising physician care and delivering mid-level care is nothing less than a bait-and-switch.
 
....As far as I'm concerned, promising physician care and delivering mid-level care is nothing less than a bait-and-switch.
And, IMHO, unethical. We should communicate with the patients. They should know what level of care we will provide routinely (i.e. mid-level vs physician). If we sell our image, our education, our diplomas and board certification, they should demand that is the service they are receiving. Otherwise, you are simply luring them with all those credentials to dip into their wallets and short-change them.

The patients should know if they are getting a physician hands on healthcare deliverer or physician office manager. Yes, they can get a little of both. But, it should be clear to them what that arrangement will be.
 
Not necessarily. I've picked up lots of patients who told me that the main reason they changed practices was because they kept getting seen by mid-levels, and rarely got to see "their doctor."

Frankly, I don't blame 'em. As far as I'm concerned, promising physician care and delivering mid-level care is nothing less than a bait-and-switch.

That's the reason a relative left their PCP and chose to go to one of my mentors in another city that's a 45 minute drive away. They make the drive and love the care.
 
Brings up another question --

What's your take on interns/residents being taught by NP's and midwives?

In our newborn nursery experience it's NP's for the most part - we table round with an attending.

For OB - we get volume with the midwives on the L&D deck. For continuity, it's with an FP w/OB privileges.....

I'm thinking that if I wanted to be trained by NPs and midwives, I would have gone to NP school or midwife school, not medical school, thank you very much.....

But I also realize it's a volume thing....

Thoughts?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Increase the number of primary care residency spots.

If I may say, the response of physicians to this encroachment from NPs is tepid ( I haven't read any article about the education and training of NP vs. MD/DO in the mainstream media and I haven't seen any MD/DO on tv explaining the disparity in education and training between the two). Physicians should utilize print, radio and tv to their advantage. MD/DO should hire a great PR and lobby firm. Give money to your org. Lastly, unite (I don't care whether you are a radiologist, FP, a surgeon or anesthesiologist, the nursing org., with their effective lobbying, is out to ask for more until they can practice independently in all specialties). Just my 2 cents.
 
I wouldn't have ranked the program.

That would have been an option, if the fact that we're trained by nurses/midwives would have been stated upfront......but it wasn't and I didn't know enough to ask the question at the time. I figured that, like I was exposed to on my 3rd year clerkships, interns were taught by attendings/upper levels, not NPs and midwives......it's not the only thing they weren't forthcoming about......

Is it too late to change now? I'm 4 months into my intern year? Would I have to go through ERAS, LORs and all that again, or just email the programs I'd be interested in?
 
....if I wanted to be trained by NPs and midwives, I would have gone to NP school or midwife school, not medical school, thank you very much...
I heard similar ~close minded thoughts by fellow surgery residents in reference to IM ICU attendings or IM hospitalists or OB/Gyns, etc... "If I wanted to be taught by IM/OB/ER?etc... I would have chosen that field...". I want to be taught by anyone that has something they can teach me.

RE: NP/Mid-levels as teachers.

I have a slightly different view. I would not write off a program because I am taught by mid-levels...too. I learned a great deal from some floor nurses and ICU nurses, etc.... I suspect there is much that can be learned from mid-levels. So, learn what they have to teach within the limits of what they have been taught.

The key, IMHO, is that the mid-levels are not there because the attending staff is lazy and has abdicated their teaching responsibilities and authority to the mid-levels. A cadre of mid-levels, especially in a high volume OB/Gyn component of residency can be helpful to your learning and sanity. It just needs to be in a well ochestrated and structured program.

You as a a physician need to remember, you can not make the excuse to defend i.e. your malpractice, "NP "x" was supervising me...". You are still the physician with more years of formal training even if you are an intern on-call your first night!
 
JackADeli --

Interesting points -- and I'm willing to learn from anyone who can teach me, no problem. I've just seen a few NP's and midwives give me the subtle smirk/disdainful look with the exquisite sarcasm accompanying as they were 'teaching'....almost as if to say,"Since I'm teaching DOCTORS, I DESERVE independent practice rights".....that's the issue I have with the whole thing.....As I'm sure you're aware, there are plenty of 'granola' midwives out there who really 'can't see the need, ever, for any baby to be born in a hospital, I mean, women have been doing this for years'....and those are the ones who wait 5 minutes with a hypotonic/apneic kid and THEN decide to call pedi support......

But I digress -- I agree, lots of midlevels/nurses/non-physicians have a lot to offer in terms of practical experience....but I wonder if we're not feeding the 'indepent practice rights' fire by placing them in teaching positions re: residents.....

The situation you mentioned re: surgery residents taught by IM/ER/hospitalists is slightly different in my mind....I assume you were talking about physicians teaching others outside of their specialty, not midlevels teaching surgical residents.....
 
...just seen a few NP's and midwives give me the subtle smirk/disdainful look with the exquisite sarcasm accompanying as they were 'teaching'....almost as if to say,"Since I'm teaching DOCTORS, I DESERVE independent practice rights".....that's the issue I have with the whole thing.....As I'm sure you're aware, there are plenty of 'granola' midwives out there who really 'can't see the need, ever, for any baby to be born in a hospital, I mean, women have been doing this for years'....and those are the ones who wait 5 minutes with a hypotonic/apneic kid and THEN decide to call pedi support......

But I digress -- I agree, lots of midlevels/nurses/non-physicians have a lot to offer in terms of practical experience....but I wonder if we're not feeding the 'indepent practice rights' fire by placing them in teaching positions re: residents.....

The situation you mentioned re: surgery residents taught by IM/ER/hospitalists is slightly different in my mind....I assume you were talking about physicians teaching others outside of their specialty, not midlevels teaching surgical residents.....
I would encourage people to step back just a little and think about the message they send. The "smirk" comes at all levels... It is often a smirk of pride because " I know this one thing you don't without going to school... so there...". You get it from floor nurses too. So, get some thicker skin.

Their belief in independent practice, etc, will continue to be encouraged by their societies. What their roles are in training residents is a matter of your PD and residency leadership. Going into this political debate, you undermine your credibility by discounting their value as having something to teach. Many have experience and have plenty to teach. The PD/leadership is in control of how that spicket valve is opened and used to water the residency garden.

No, it is no different when talking physician to physician teaching as well. Again, it is a good comparison. Trying to split hairs further undermines credibility. It also demonstrates an elitist attitude. The fact is that PC medicine and FM specifically have faught for any number of areas of scope of practice based on "experience", etc.... They have faught for the credentials to do x, y, z. They have taken that further and faught for credentials to teach x, y, z.... that are generally procedures of a subspecialty trained field. I am not opposing this per se. I am just saying classwarfare type rhetoric is not going to win this. Many patients want a physician.

However, many patients love their NP/PA. Many patients have NP/PAs in their family (mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts). When these individuals start hearing a physician say they refuse to be taught, therefore refuse to learn from an RN/NP/PA, you can imagine the elitism & arrogance they hear. I have met numerous patients that view physicians as "know it alls that don't listen" and "that's why I prefer my 'Nancy'". Those may be exceptions.

Just keep in mind what your rhetoric and classwarfare arguments may be doing. You may be alienating your most important allies. This is true in just about most current practice arguments....
 
I would encourage people to step back just a little and think about the message they send. The "smirk" comes at all levels... It is often a smirk of pride because " I know this one thing you don't without going to school... so there...". You get it from floor nurses too. So, get some thicker skin.

Their belief in independent practice, etc, will continue to be encouraged by their societies. What their roles are in training residents is a matter of your PD and residency leadership. Going into this political debate, you undermine your credibility by discounting their value as having something to teach. Many have experience and have plenty to teach. The PD/leadership is in control of how that spicket valve is opened and used to water the residency garden.

No, it is no different when talking physician to physician teaching as well. Again, it is a good comparison. Trying to split hairs further undermines credibility. It also demonstrates an elitist attitude. The fact is that PC medicine and FM specifically have faught for any number of areas of scope of practice based on "experience", etc.... They have faught for the credentials to do x, y, z. They have taken that further and faught for credentials to teach x, y, z.... that are generally procedures of a subspecialty trained field. I am not opposing this per se. I am just saying classwarfare type rhetoric is not going to win this. Many patients want a physician.

However, many patients love their NP/PA. Many patients have NP/PAs in their family (mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts). When these individuals start hearing a physician say they refuse to be taught, therefore refuse to learn from an RN/NP/PA, you can imagine the elitism & arrogance they hear. I have met numerous patients that view physicians as "know it alls that don't listen" and "that's why I prefer my 'Nancy'". Those may be exceptions.

Just keep in mind what your rhetoric and classwarfare arguments may be doing. You may be alienating your most important allies. This is true in just about most current practice arguments....

Couple of things:

1) I never said they didn't have something to teach--- they do in certain situations. The question that I've always had is -- Ok, I just went through 4 years of hell aka medical school for a cost of around $190K....and now I'm being taught by a mid-level rather than an attending physician. Ok, I can learn from anyone, even the X-Ray tech who talks to me about positioning and interpreting X-Rays...cool. But if I can learn what I need to learn from a mid-level, then why the hell is medical school 4 years and $190K? If a mid-level is good enough to teach people in GME programs, then why do we have the GME programs in the first place? It's almost like we're agreeing with their position. Is that elitist? Not necessarily-- as physicians, or at least FPs, we're standing here with our teeth in our mouth saying mid-levels need physician supervision yet they're qualified enough to teach the residents what they need to know for boards and to satisfy ACGME requirements for residency? There's a saying in the south -- "That dog don't hunt"....

2)You're assuming I'm saying this to my patients and not just discussing it with other physicians. I know better than to be disparaging about other medical professionals to patients...makes everyone look bad, especially me.

3) Here in Texas there's a group of former NPs and PAs that are now MD/DO's that are in the middle of the scope of practice issue --- the major talking point by these individuals is,"We just didn't know what we didn't know"....

4) Just as an FYI, not to be rude or anything, it's 'spigot' and 'fought'.

Anyway, I appreciate your viewpoints and input. I'll function check my attitude and see if it needs adjusting...this one gets me a little irritated and once you slide over into emotionalism it's easy to lose perspective.....
 
Couple of things:

1) I never said they didn't have something to teach--- they do in certain situations. The question that I've always had is -- Ok, I just went through 4 years of hell aka medical school for a cost of around $190K....and now I'm being taught by a mid-level rather than an attending physician. Ok, I can learn from anyone, even the X-Ray tech who talks to me about positioning and interpreting X-Rays...cool. But if I can learn what I need to learn from a mid-level, then why the hell is medical school 4 years and $190K? If a mid-level is good enough to teach people in GME programs, then why do we have the GME programs in the first place? It's almost like we're agreeing with their position. Is that elitist? Not necessarily-- as physicians, or at least FPs, we're standing here with our teeth in our mouth saying mid-levels need physician supervision yet they're qualified enough to teach the residents what they need to know for boards and to satisfy ACGME requirements for residency? There's a saying in the south -- "That dog don't hunt"....

A mid-level can teach you about the narrow scope of practice in which they have spent their entire career working. You as a physician take that, as well as all the other training you receive and bundle it into a complete package. A mid-level does NOT have the training to oversee a complete GME program, but they DO have the training to oversee small bits of it. You take the nurse, and the x-ray tech and all the mid-levels and put it all together with guidance from your attending to become the physician.
 
...I never said they didn't have something to teach--- they do in certain situations. The question that I've always had is -- Ok, I just went through 4 years of hell aka medical school for a cost of around $190K....and now I'm being taught by a mid-level rather than an attending physician. ...If a mid-level is good enough to teach people in GME programs, then why do we have the GME programs in the first place? It's almost like we're agreeing with their position. Is that elitist? Not necessarily-- as physicians, or at least FPs, we're standing here with our teeth in our mouth saying mid-levels need physician supervision yet they're qualified enough to teach the residents what they need to know for boards and to satisfy ACGME requirements for residency?...
Yes, the way you describe it, it is elitism. Nobody has stated that a mid-level is qualified to provide you complete GME/residency training. However, citing your attendance at medical school and the dollars spent as reason why you get an attending and not a mid-level does smack of elitism. Regular floor nurses have things to teach you. To suggest you now deserve/should receive your education by an attending cause you spent 190k, it doesn't work. Medicine is getting more complex, not simpler. A division of labor can allow for more efficient dissemination of knowledge and education. As a medical student, myself and others received a large portion of our practical/hands-on suture training from OR nurse first assists.... not even mid-levels. I was paying over 100k for that education, should the attending or resident stay for all these skin closures? They are more globally knowlegable. But the person doing that one specific/focused piece of care, day in day out, was the nurse assistant. The same for IV starting, I learned that best from pediatric nurses... etc, etc.... So, yes, IMHO, an L&D nurse, midwife, NP can be a good teacher within the confines of their training and experience and under the structured leadeships of attendings/PDs. I would add, they may even provide some additional education that may have been missing in the past. The attendings are not going to be there 24/7 because you paid 190k. Speaking with some colleagues, in the past, the attendings said few words over the phone and weren't in the hospital, leaving residents flying solo. Having an experienced NP/Midwife to provide some guidance can be beneficial.
....2)You're assuming I'm saying this to my patients and not just discussing it with other physicians.
....
No, I am not assuming that. My point is more global and bigger then your gripe on a forum. The point is that that argument is being made politically. Also, the argument is being made to not rank programs that have mid-levels as teachers. That argument is heard and felt accross the country. It propels the adversarial attitudes between physicians and nurses. I guess mid-levels have no role? That is rhetorical. The question, though, that needs to be answered clearly is what role do we feel they have and how can we support and promote that dynamic in a constructive manner? Deciding a program with mid-levels as part of the teaching cadre is not worthy of your ranking it is a problem. Deciding as a med-student what roles mid-levels should have and what they can teach you is somewhat elitist and arrogant. IMHO, a PD with complete training and experience should responsibly determine the role and position of mid-levels within their residency. As noted, that role should not be out of laziness or abdication of teaching obligation but rather to enhance and expand learning opportunities.
....3) Here in Texas there's a group of former NPs and PAs that are now MD/DO's that are in the middle of the scope of practice issue --- the major talking point by these individuals is,"We just didn't know what we didn't know"...
Great. That is why the defined role should be based on the attending leadership and/or PD within the residency.
...4) Just as an FYI, not to be rude or anything, it's 'spigot' and 'fought'...
Yeh, sure, not to be rude.... I get that the snarky spell check was simply meant as a polite education point.....BS.
A mid-level can teach you about the narrow scope of practice in which they have spent their entire career working. You as a physician take that, as well as all the other training you receive and bundle it into a complete package. A mid-level does NOT have the training to oversee a complete GME program, but they DO have the training to oversee small bits of it. You take the nurse, and the x-ray tech and all the mid-levels and put it all together with guidance from your attending to become the physician.
Exactly.
 
Nobody here has said that they couldn't learn anything from a mid-level. The question that was posed related to mid-levels in supervisory or preceptor roles. That's what I would take issue with, for reasons already stated by others in the thread.

You as a a physician need to remember, you can not make the excuse to defend i.e. your malpractice, "NP "x" was supervising me...". You are still the physician with more years of formal training even if you are an intern on-call your first night!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody here has said that they couldn't learn anything from a mid-level. The question that was posed related to mid-levels in supervisory or preceptor roles. That's what I would take issue with, for reasons already stated by others in the thread.

Agreed. I mean hell, the janitor who has worked in the ICU for 30 years could probably teach you a thing or two he's picked up along the way. However, the point (and I think it's what you're alluding to here blue) is that mid-levels shouldn't be in the supervisory role, despite what they can or cannot teach you.
 
However, the point (and I think it's what you're alluding to here blue) is that mid-levels shouldn't be in the supervisory role, despite what they can or cannot teach you.

So a pa/np who works for the vascular access or IR service at a major hospital and starts 20 central lines/day shouldn't be able to teach/critique/supervise/grade an intern on how to start a central line? within the narrow confines of a procedure such as this in which they are the primary hospital resource(and likely better at them than the vast majority of clinicians in the facility) they certainly could have this role...don't you think?
we have an IR pa at my facility who does all the u/s guided lines (peripheral and central) and difficult lp's in the facility which no one else can get. that's all he does and he is really good at it...he is very involved in teaching these procedures to our residents as well. don't know if he writes an eval for them but he might(or at least signs off that they have done X # with a high degree of competence in his presence).
 
Mid-levels should not be supervising physicians-in-training. Period.

Teaching isn't necessarily supervision. Mid-levels can certainly engage in teaching residents with physician supervision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
teaching isn't necessarily supervision.

very fine line...as soon as you say" stop, you're doing it wrong, do it like this or i can't sign you off on this procedure" that sounds a lot like supervision....we're now arguing semantics....so one can precept and teach but not supervise?....right....
 
What's your take on interns/residents being taught by NP's and midwives?

If it matters the original post used taught not supervised. So from a semantics side one could argue that being taught by mid-levels is perfectly acceptable. Having a program structured and "supervised" by mid-levels is not acceptable.
 
If it matters the original post used taught not supervised. So from a semantics side one could argue that being taught by mid-levels is perfectly acceptable. Having a program structured and "supervised" by mid-levels is not acceptable.
so if a pa teaches a resident a procedure(let's say u/s guided central line placement) and cosigns their procedure note are they supervising in addition to teaching?
 
I interpret supervising as determining the curriculum and ensuring that all aspects of that curriculum are satisfactorily covered. Yes you can have a mid-level "supervise" a procedure they have taught, but I would not consider that supervising the program.

I dunno, I am just a med-student though, what do I know :) I will take my learning from wherever I can get it.
 
very fine line...as soon as you say" stop, you're doing it wrong, do it like this or i can't sign you off on this procedure" that sounds a lot like supervision....we're now arguing semantics....so one can precept and teach but not supervise?....right....

You're missing the point.

As long as there is a supervising physician involved, there is no problem.

A resident "supervised" by a mid-level is essentially unsupervised from a medicolegal standpoint.
 
I interpret supervising as determining the curriculum and ensuring that all aspects of that curriculum are satisfactorily covered. Yes you can have a mid-level "supervise" a procedure they have taught, but I would not consider that supervising the program.

I dunno, I am just a med-student though, what do I know :) I will take my learning from wherever I can get it.

I would agree that midlevels are not directing curriculum, etc as that is in the domain of the physician teaching staff. there are many programs where pa's do precept off service residents( as assigned by their residency program directors and/or other attending physicians) in the specialty which the pa practices full time be it em, icu, etc. a supervising pysician is "involved" only to the extent that they know" the resident is in fast track with the pa's today", not by being present and persoanlly reviewing the care delivered.
learn from whoever can teach you something and you will go far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a supervising pysician is "involved" only to the extent that they know" the resident is in fast track with the pa's today", not by being present and persoanlly reviewing the care delivered.

Regardless, it's their (and/or the resident's) ass if anything goes wrong, not the PA's.

If I were a resident, I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
 
...Ok, I just went through 4 years of hell aka medical school for a cost of around $190K....and now I'm being taught by a mid-level rather than an attending physician. ...But if I can learn what I need to learn from a mid-level, then why the hell is medical school 4 years and $190K? If a mid-level is good enough to teach people in GME programs, then why do we have the GME programs in the first place?...
Nobody here has said that they couldn't learn anything from a mid-level...
I stand by the statement I wrote that you have quoted in reference to med/legal, etc... I also stand by my discussion with the previous poster. Not that anyone has stated they "...couldn't learn from...". However, the comments, especially as extended in reference to one's medical school expenses, etc.... read as if they "...shouldn't learn...". That all goes back to the mentality of elitism, etc...

Per mid-levels as supervisors, I think it is very, very tricky and risky for the resident. One may try to argue a "resident license" or "restricted license" of the resident.. which does mean the resident is under the the unrestricted/full license of the attendings as are the mid-levels. I am not sure that "splitting of hairs" will be recognized or appreciated by juries.

I also am concerned at recent publications of attendings in malpractice suits. Specifically, attendings getting removed as named individuals to become witnesses against residents. This is happening and attendings are protecting their careers with the, "resident was acting independently..." or "I could not be supervising if I was not told...". the problem is the old dictum, "call if you need help... but know calling is a sign of weakness".

So, getting back to mid-levels as "supervisors" or pseudo-attendings, I think it is a bad idea. Also, you loose the "split hair" argument once you apply for your unrestricted license!
 
Last edited:
Top