Are you kidding me? She's trying to suggest the numbers she reports actually overrepresent NPs being named in malpractice suits because of evil MD's. She totally ignored the question - which is HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT MOST NP'S ARE IN LESS SUE-HAPPY SPECIALTIES. Which of course, she doesn't. Simultaneously, she is ignoring the simple fact that MD'S ARE NAMED IN MALPRACTICE SUITS WHERE NP'S WERE THE ACTUAL PERPETRATORS TOO. And she totally glosses over the issue of who's MORE LIKELY TO BE NAMED IN A LAWSUIT. Who do you think is more likely to be left off of a suit, an MD, or a nurse practitioner? Whose pockets are deeper? Who clearly had the directing and oversight role in the care of the patient (and thus, ultimately "to blame"). But neither of us has the actual data to flush out who's to blame how much of the time and why that is. Her problem is that she refuses to acknowledge that and is overinterpreting her "data" (you really can't call it that) to further her own selfish agenda.
Ridiculous on two counts:
1) We aren't saying NP's are in no way involved in specialty care, genius. We're saying they are FAR FAR MORE HEAVILY IN THE REALM OF FAR FAR LESS SUE-HAPPY FIELDS.
2) I thought the whole NP push for autonomy was to cover the primary care gap? All of a sudden she's all proud that NP's are infiltrating into all the subspecialties? Now they're "providing a primary care emphasis" while simultaneously "focusing with providing specialty care"? Man, these NP's can do it all! Gosh, why do MD's even exist?!
Are.....you......kidding......me. She's quite deranged.
The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because you geniuses are practicing in primary care and people don't sue primary care. The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because you geniuses are functioning on a team lead by a physician, who ends up taking the fall, whether legitimate or not. The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because we have not allowed you to enter into the specialties to PROVE your "rates of problems" would be higher because there's absolutely no reason to think you'll do better or even as well as we do. We have the better training, we have the higher aptitude, we have the stronger clinical acumen and quality of training and I REFUSE to wager my patients' lives and outcomes on your little ego trip trying to "prove" you're just as good to the world.
If you want to expand your scope because you want to fill the primary care gap, okay fine I can at least appreciate that your intentions seem honorable, at least at face value ignoring any ulterior motives. But you honestly think that MD's are "practicing beyond our ability"? Pray tell, WHO EXACTLY HAS THIS ABILITY, THEN? This ability to treat disease beyond the level of an MD board certified in a field of medicine? Are you saying we're not referring enough to other specialists? Because you know what the answer to that is? I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it doesn't involve including less qualified "professionals" like NP's in the care of our more complex patients. It is a problem within the medical profession that wouldn't be solved with some sort of NP presence to alleviate us from our woefully inadequate ability - it means further involvement of subspecialists with better and better training.
But again - the reason that we see a higher rate of "problems" from MD's is because we are the ones DIRECTING care in neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, ICU care, transplants, trauma care, oncology, and every other field that includes more complex care then what your role as a "primary care gap-filler" can prepare you for. And even when you are involved, you are INVOLVED, not DIRECTING care. And even when you are DIRECTING care, you're not the ones with the deep pockets, and you're not the ones who get sued. But if you get your wish, you will.
I'd like to know what exactly about NP training makes them so much more expert in detecting when to call for a consult or refer - and how she intends to prove that her allegation is correct. And she had better have something better than this ridiculous "data" she's trying to pass off.
Sadly, I'm starting to believe her type of thinking will destroy our profession. How do you feel about that, Ms. Pearson? All that we work for, all that we believe in, all that we have worked and trained to achieve, you feel comfortable impuging that by saying your silly little overinflated degree and your chutzpah and spunk are enough to denigrate our entire profession by saying you're all better than us? I hate to say it because honestly, all I want to do is just work hard, work well and collegially with my coworkers and colleagues, and become a good physician to help patients in the best way I can, and you make me want to pick up a flag and lead a charge to destroy your little campaign and your entire profession like you're trying to do to us.
