What can be done to improve the perception of the PA profession.

[primadonna22274]

For the newbies here, welcome to the forum and to our profession.

Let me say unequivocally that I will ALWAYS advocate for PAs. I don't feel that once I graduate medical school in June that I will suddenly stop "being" a PA--I've been in this role for fifteen years including training. I am very proud of my PA background and have continued to teach PAs during DO school. I believe strongly that PAs are a consistently better product than NPs although I have been privileged to work with some wonderful NPs, some of whom mentored me.

I'm on the residency interview trail right now and a big item on my ranking list is how much interprofessional education occurs at an institution (or sadly and far too often, how little) and whether that residency will make me a better teacher. I have the opportunity to rank my local program #1 not because it's 10 minutes from my house, but partly because the hospital is co-sponsoring a new PA training program (there has only been ONE program in SC since the 70s and much of the rest of the state is sorely underserved) and I would have the opportunity to help train those PAs alongside medical students, residents, nursing students and professionals and pharmacists in a truly collaborative setting. This is my long-term goal as a medical educator and to think I could be mentored into that role as a resident physician is pretty darn cool.

Having PAs "graduate" to the physician ranks is surely a boon to the profession if s/he is a strong advocate for PAs overall.

[tunafish]

I would like to know how PA to DO bridge programs would help the PA profession..

 

Wouldn't that actually hurt the PA profession? All of the "good" PAs would simply convert to being DOs, leaving only those that do not want to advance their career. Those that remain as PAs would be asked "why do you not wish to become a DO?" Obviously becoming a DO would mean you would command a "physician" salary, thus an employer might as well hire another physician. For true "midlevels", they would have no choice but to hire NPs.

 

Converting from a PA to a DO does nothing for the PA profession but reduce the number of intelligent PAs. A PA who becomes a DO is NOT a PA, so I fail to see how they help the PA professional image.

 

I would have to agree here. if you reach the top of the game - go teach. Medicine is all about teaching and spreading the knowledge

Who would be a HUGE advocate for a PA profession other then a PA?    What we need is some dedicated PAs on the inside of the physician club....

Awesome point, but it would work locally. I was wondering how to get into a lawmaking portion of this to get some turf. It seems like a double edged sward. If you do not push for independence form SP, they will never feel the threat that you could compete from patients and business. If you get independence- it would be another story.

The conversation escalated over NP issue. I never meant to discuss them. There is nothing to discuss. Right now I see a skewed view. Where I am from, NPs are best for clinics according to the MDs there and PAs are meant to be in the hospitals. This is skewed and need to be changed. The goal is not to make NPs suffer, the goal is to make PAs florish by creating a safety cushion of job security. I heard that in my state you can not put a chest tube, you can not open chest but you used to be able to do it as a PA. How to fight that, that's my question.

[MedicalRN]

I would have to agree here. if you reach the top of the game - go teach. Medicine is all about teaching and spreading the knowledge

Awesome point, but it would work locally. I was wondering how to get into a lawmaking portion of this to get some turf. It seems like a double edged sward. If you do not push for independence form SP, they will never feel the threat that you could compete from patients and business. If you get independence- it would be another story.

The conversation escalated over NP issue. I never meant to discuss them. There is nothing to discuss. Right now I see a skewed view. Where I am from, NPs are best for clinics according to the MDs there and PAs are meant to be in the hospitals. This is skewed and need to be changed. The goal is not to make NPs suffer, the goal is to make PAs florish by creating a safety cushion of job security. I heard that in my state you can not put a chest tube, you can not open chest but you used to be able to do it as a PA. How to fight that, that's my question.

 

Yes, my concern with making PA to DO bridge programs commonplace is twofold, as I mentioned before. First is that becoming a DO does not help the PA profession - that person is now a member of a different profession and it does not help the former. People from all walks of life go on to be physicians, but it doesn't "help" their previous position. Do bakers and secretaries that go on to be physicians help the image of the baking and secretarial worlds? I just don't see the correlation. Once they become DOs, while they may advocate for PAs in that they hire them or teach them, they won't do so from a political level. A DO, who has earned full independence and equality as a physician, is not going to advocate for PAs to have full autonomy and independence - it would threaten their own job security. Furthermore, those that do hunger for more autonomy, rather than fight for it as a PA, will just go on to becomes DOs. PAs would be losing their most vocal supporters to a different profession.

 

As for the NP/PA thing, I sort of agree about clinic vs hospital. PAs do seem to be more at home in the hospital and can do more invasive procedures, work in more critical environment, and perform more acute medicine. NPs, on the other hand, seem to focus more time on patient teaching, follow-ups, etc. commonly seen in clinic/walk-in environments. I remember seeing a paper somewhere a few months ago showing that patients felt better educated and had less follow-up questions when they were seen by an NP vs a PA/MD. In a clinic, where there is time for full histories, patient education, managing services, and more "holistic" care, NPs seem to shine. It doesn't mean an NP can't work in a hospital or a PA can't work in a clinic (obviously tons do) but the NP model seems to be more based in clinic work and PA model is more based in hospital work. I understand that you want PAs to be the "preferred" clinician in every environment, but that is simply not the case. NPs are not some bogeymen out there trying to use underhanded tactics to steal PA jobs. Contrary to popular belief, most practicing nurse practitioners do not agree with every action of the lobbying arm and see themselves as equal to PAs, not better. Most NPs, like most PAs, just want to practice at their full scope, learn, help patients, and just be the best provider they can. Bashing an entire profession just to make sure you have better job security is just poor form - if you believe you would be better in a particular clinic job than an NP, make the case to the employer yourself. It's a lot easier than trying to start a national anti-NP movement.

[tunafish]

 

 

As for the NP/PA thing, I sort of agree about clinic vs hospital. PAs do seem to be more at home in the hospital and can do more invasive procedures, work in more critical environment, and perform more acute medicine. NPs, on the other hand, seem to focus more time on patient teaching, follow-ups, etc. commonly seen in clinic/walk-in environments.

You do not need to be a clinician to do all that. An RN can do this. This is exactly the problem: they will be perfect to do a pap smear from Ms. Johnes in a nice, relaxed and down to earth way. They can even talk about her UTI or yeast infection prevention. But they are put in a front line position of diagnosing an acute office visit. And this is where analytical clinical knowledge is lacking. Same with internists. 

I agree, patients will have less follow up questions. All "good" nurses I have seen were masters of small talk with patients. The problem was 80% of clinical trial coordinators I dealt with could not comprehend clinical and biological underpinnings of the studies they were recruiting to due to the lack of fundamental education. Note here, not trouleshooting or designing... understanding!!!  Majority of patients were ok with that, but there were cases where people did not buy into BS explanation.

Once again, I am all against an anti-NP movement, that is not a goal. But in order to "make a case" to the employer, we should have an opportunity. Reading this forum makes is clear about PA friendly and not so much states, areas, hospitals.

[MedicalRN]

You do not need to be a clinician to do all that. An RN can do this. This is exactly the problem: they will be perfect to do a pap smear from Ms. Johnes in a nice, relaxed and down to earth way. They can even talk about her UTI or yeast infection prevention. But they are put in a front line position of diagnosing an acute office visit. And this is where analytical clinical knowledge is lacking. Same with internists. 

I agree, patients will have less follow up questions. All "good" nurses I have seen were masters of small talk with patients. The problem was 80% of clinical trial coordinators I dealt with could not comprehend clinical and biological underpinnings of the studies they were recruiting to due to the lack of fundamental education. Note here, not trouleshooting or designing... understanding!!!  Majority of patients were ok with that, but there were cases where people did not buy into BS explanation.

Once again, I am all against an anti-NP movement, that is not a goal. But in order to "make a case" to the employer, we should have an opportunity. Reading this forum makes is clear about PA friendly and not so much states, areas, hospitals.

 

I understand your frustration, but again, you're generalizing. PAs, while wonderful, are not always the better choice for every position. There are highly trained, experienced NPs, who know as much if not more. Taking my own case as an example, I studied hardcore pre-med courses at a top 10 ranked university for my undergraduate degree. If I go the NP route, I will be going to one of the top NP programs in the country, and will likely complete a NP residency program after I graduate. I fully expect to be a competent provider and "understand" the science behind my patients' ailments and treaments - and if I do not understand it, I will look it up and learn it. If I am competing for a position with a PA, you better believe I am going to consider myself the better provider. It's naive and pompous to believe PAs are always the superior choice. Even if I go the PA route, I will not belittle NPs or consider myself superior to them, because I know they've proven themselves capable providers for decades.

[tunafish]

I understand your frustration, but again, you're generalizing. PAs, while wonderful, are not always the better choice for every position. There are highly trained, experienced NPs, who know as much if not more. Taking my own case as an example, I studied hardcore pre-med courses at a top 10 ranked university for my undergraduate degree. If I go the NP route, I will be going to one of the top NP programs in the country, and will likely complete a NP residency program after I graduate. I fully expect to be a competent provider and "understand" the science behind my patients' ailments and treaments - and if I do not understand it, I will look it up and learn it. If I am competing for a position with a PA, you better believe I am going to consider myself the better provider. It's naive and pompous to believe PAs are always the superior choice. Even if I go the PA route, I will not belittle NPs or consider myself superior to them, because I know they've proven themselves capable providers for decades.

I think you case is unusual as you could easily get into med school or whatever school. You have to agree the trend is the following: too tired of hospital shift work, let me switch to admin/managerial work and take 3 credits/semester online via myriad of nursing bridge shortcuts. Couple years and fresh masters or doctorate is done 

[WeBuyAndSellJunk]

With regard to the PA --> DO bridge, I believe you are forgetting where a lot of PAs come from. The reason a lot of us are PAs is due to the fact that you can climb up the ladder in some fashion. It is also easier to keep advocating for a profession when you are in the same field, as opposed to a baker becoming a physician. For example, it is possible that a physician who was previously a PA will push to employ more PAs. It is not only the political scene where advocates for PAs are needed...

[primadonna22274]

Gosh I sure love it when I post thoughtful and insightful and insightful responses to these threads that go completely ignored. Experience is talking here folks. You can speculate or you can ask those who have done both.

[tunafish]

With regard to the PA --> DO bridge, I believe you are forgetting where a lot of PAs come from. The reason a lot of us are PAs is due to the fact that you can climb up the ladder in some fashion. It is also easier to keep advocating for a profession when you are in the same field, as opposed to a baker becoming a physician. For example, it is possible that a physician who was previously a PA will push to employ more PAs. It is not only the political scene where advocates for PAs are needed...

Irony ON: being a DO you will have to spend time and advocate for your own rear in the eyes of your fellow physicians... IRONY OFF

 

In a long run it is bad, no matter how you look at it. If you are an ex-PA and hire young and aspiring... they will start to look up and google "PA to DO bridge in 3 years"...

[Will352ns]

For the newbies here, welcome to the forum and to our profession.

Let me say unequivocally that I will ALWAYS advocate for PAs. I don't feel that once I graduate medical school in June that I will suddenly stop "being" a PA--I've been in this role for fifteen years including training. I am very proud of my PA background and have continued to teach PAs during DO school. I believe strongly that PAs are a consistently better product than NPs although I have been privileged to work with some wonderful NPs, some of whom mentored me.

I'm on the residency interview trail right now and a big item on my ranking list is how much interprofessional education occurs at an institution (or sadly and far too often, how little) and whether that residency will make me a better teacher. I have the opportunity to rank my local program #1 not because it's 10 minutes from my house, but partly because the hospital is co-sponsoring a new PA training program (there has only been ONE program in SC since the 70s and much of the rest of the state is sorely underserved) and I would have the opportunity to help train those PAs alongside medical students, residents, nursing students and professionals and pharmacists in a truly collaborative setting. This is my long-term goal as a medical educator and to think I could be mentored into that role as a resident physician is pretty darn cool.

Having PAs "graduate" to the physician ranks is surely a boon to the profession if s/he is a strong advocate for PAs overall.

 

All well and good, but the original topic of the tread has nothing to do with your situation.  You went the bridge program, good on you (no sarcasm...really).  I'm sure it was a tough road. 

 

Look at the original topic and look at the original responses before it got hijacked.  How to improve the Perception of the PA profession.  While I have no reason to believe you will not still advocate for PA's, the fact that you went to a bridge program has nothing to do with the overall perception of the PA profession nor will advocating going to bridge have any affect on the profession (IMO).

 

I stated that it shouldn't be looked at as a stepping stone.  I still think that way.  You don't positively affect the perception of one profession by advocating the movement into another.  I never said that PA's shouldn't do a bridge....that was implied by another poster.  Going to a bridge program is an INDIVIDUAL choice that has nothing to do with overall perception. 

 

The thread was never about the validity of PA-DO bridge programs, nor was my original post.

 

Just a newbie ;)

[tunafish]

Gosh I sure love it when I post thoughtful and insightful and insightful responses to these threads that go completely ignored. Experience is talking here folks. You can speculate or you can ask those who have done both.

I was wondering if I am missing something here. Care to elaborate? My understanding that you are a seasoned PA going through med school, right? When in residency you will belong to your attending head to toe trying to get your own training. What educational role would you have in training PAs? What role would you have after your residency? Clinical preceptor?

So, if we are sitting in the same room and you are talking about how great the PA is.... and I ask you why did you leave that job if you think it is so great?... crickets...

[tunafish]

All well and good, but the original topic of the tread has nothing to do with your situation.  You went the bridge program, good on you (no sarcasm...really).  I'm sure it was a tough road. 

 

Look at the original topic and look at the original responses before it got hijacked.  How to improve the Perception of the PA profession.  While I have no reason to believe you will not still advocate for PA's, the fact that you went to a bridge program has nothing to do with the overall perception of the PA profession nor will advocating going to bridge have any affect on the profession (IMO).

 

I stated that it shouldn't be looked at as a stepping stone.  I still think that way.  You don't positively affect the perception of one profession by advocating the movement into another.  I never said that PA's shouldn't do a bridge....that was implied by another poster.  Going to a bridge program is an INDIVIDUAL choice that has nothing to do with overall perception. 

 

The thread was never about the validity of PA-DO bridge programs, nor was my original post.

 

Just a newbie ;)

EXACTLY!!! It would be so hypocritical of me to convince people to pursue an academic career and PhD in biology if I am about to jump ship

[WeBuyAndSellJunk]

Do you believe that every radiology tech, nurse, EMT, etc. aspires to be a PA some day? Why do you so adamantly believe that you cannot be an advocate for a certain profession because you are in another (especially if you have worked in that role previously)? Some people will be content and do very well as PAs, others may find they want more. That is the nature of the profession! You are not a physician and should not expect to hold similar responsibilites and perform certain duties (some do, but they are the exception to the rule). I think it is beyond reasonable that someone could wish to advance their career while still understanding the value and importance of their previous job.

[CoastalPalm]

As for the NP/PA thing, I sort of agree about clinic vs hospital. PAs do seem to be more at home in the hospital and can do more invasive procedures, work in more critical environment, and perform more acute medicine. NPs, on the other hand, seem to focus more time on patient teaching, follow-ups, etc. commonly seen in clinic/walk-in environments. I remember seeing a paper somewhere a few months ago showing that patients felt better educated and had less follow-up questions when they were seen by an NP vs a PA/MD. In a clinic, where there is time for full histories, patient education, managing services, and more "holistic" care, NPs seem to shine. It doesn't mean an NP can't work in a hospital or a PA can't work in a clinic (obviously tons do) but the NP model seems to be more based in clinic work and PA model is more based in hospital work. I understand that you want PAs to be the "preferred" clinician in every environment, but that is simply not the case. NPs are not some bogeymen out there trying to use underhanded tactics to steal PA jobs. Contrary to popular belief, most practicing nurse practitioners do not agree with every action of the lobbying arm and see themselves as equal to PAs, not better. Most NPs, like most PAs, just want to practice at their full scope, learn, help patients, and just be the best provider they can. Bashing an entire profession just to make sure you have better job security is just poor form - if you believe you would be better in a particular clinic job than an NP, make the case to the employer yourself. It's a lot easier than trying to start a national anti-NP movement.

 

Well I think something that is also at play is the different types of NPs.  I think that most are thinking of FNPs (Family Nurse Practitioners).  I don't think their programs are suited for hospital-based practice.  I was actually talking to one of my coworkers that's in an FNP program about this yesterday, and she definitely doesn't feel that her FNP program prepares her for the inpatient setting.  But then, that's not what it's really for (though there are FNPs that practice inpatient.  There was an undergrad clinical nurse instructor on our floor yesterday, and she's an FNP that works in neurosurgery, mostly outpatient, but some inpatient responsibilities).  I'd say it's similar for the Adult NP programs, though they seem to have more leeway (another RN coworker is in an Adult NP program, and is currently doing a clinical rotation in interventional cards, and is in the cath lab with his MD preceptor doing caths under direct supervision.  I also saw a video recently from Columbia's nursing school that included a brief part of a student in an Adult NP program that is doing a rotation in cardiac surgery with an NP that practices in that).  BUT, there's also a relatively newer NP specialty, the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (ACNP), that is trained specifically for hospital-based/specialty practice, as opposed to the FNP that is outpatient/family/clinic focused.  These programs also included skills training relevant to inpatient practice.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that while I agree with what you're saying if we're talking about FNPs, ACNPs are trained for inpatient/specialty practice, and maybe it's because of all these different types of advanced practice nurses (in contrast to the PA/MD model where you receive generalist training then can specialize) that some are not aware of the newish ACNPs.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Well I think something that is also at play is the different types of NPs. I think that most are thinking of FNPs (Family Nurse Practitioners). I don't think their programs are suited for hospital-based practice. I was actually talking to one of my coworkers that's in an FNP program about this yesterday, and she definitely doesn't feel that her FNP program prepares her for the inpatient setting. But then, that's not what it's really for (though there are FNPs that practice inpatient. There was an undergrad clinical nurse instructor on our floor yesterday, and she's an FNP that works in neurosurgery, mostly outpatient, but some inpatient responsibilities). I'd say it's similar for the Adult NP programs, though they seem to have more leeway (another RN coworker is in an Adult NP program, and is currently doing a clinical rotation in interventional cards, and is in the cath lab with his MD preceptor doing caths under direct supervision. I also saw a video recently from Columbia's nursing school that included a brief part of a student in an Adult NP program that is doing a rotation in cardiac surgery with an NP that practices in that). BUT, there's also a relatively newer NP specialty, the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (ACNP), that is trained specifically for hospital-based/specialty practice, as opposed to the FNP that is outpatient/family/clinic focused. These programs also included skills training relevant to inpatient practice.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that while I agree with what you're saying if we're talking about FNPs, ACNPs are trained for inpatient/specialty practice, and maybe it's because of all these different types of advanced practice nurses (in contrast to the PA/MD model where you receive generalist training then can specialize) that some are not aware of the newish ACNPs.

ACNP isn't that new. It came about in the 90s. I was in one, in fact, during my tenure as a ICU RN. I promise you that PA is better for inpatient hands down. I'm not bashing. I believe we should all be working together, but PA is better training.

[MedicalRN]

I think you case is unusual as you could easily get into med school or whatever school. You have to agree the trend is the following: too tired of hospital shift work, let me switch to admin/managerial work and take 3 credits/semester online via myriad of nursing bridge shortcuts. Couple years and fresh masters or doctorate is done 

 

I will admit that I am probably the exception rather than the rule, but being a Nurse Practitioner is a wonderful full career in its own right, and I find it insulting to believe that pre-NPs do not prepare and dedicate their life to what they want to do. Contrary to your belief, becoming a nurse practitioner is not some "side job" that people do when they are sick of being an RN. Yes, the way NP education is currently set up makes it easy for those type of NPs to form and exist...but on the other side of the spectrum there are thousands of highly educated, intelligent, wonderful nurse practitioners dedicated to the field.

[EMEDPA]

I will admit that I am probably the exception rather than the rule, but being a Nurse Practitioner is a wonderful full career in its own right, and I find it insulting to believe that pre-NPs do not prepare and dedicate their life to what they want to do. Contrary to your belief, becoming a nurse practitioner is not some "side job" that people do when they are sick of being an RN. Yes, the way NP education is currently set up makes it easy for those type of NPs to form and exist...but on the other side of the spectrum there are thousands of highly educated, intelligent, wonderful nurse practitioners dedicated to the field.

agree. there are some slackers( same in PA school) but most NPs want to do a good job and advance their careers. most make fine providers.  

[Guest JMPA]

I will admit that I am probably the exception rather than the rule, but being a Nurse Practitioner is a wonderful full career in its own right, and I find it insulting to believe that pre-NPs do not prepare and dedicate their life to what they want to do. Contrary to your belief, becoming a nurse practitioner is not some "side job" that people do when they are sick of being an RN. Yes, the way NP education is currently set up makes it easy for those type of NPs to form and exist...but on the other side of the spectrum there are thousands of highly educated, intelligent, wonderful nurse practitioners dedicated to the field.

do not feed the troll, we are all aware that np and PA should not be grouped together, and that a bridge program would eliminate the need/want for a doctorate of PA while providing more MD/DOs to the work force. Of course it would not hurt the profession, only help it. Most all MDs prefer PA over NP simply because PAs practice medicine like physicians and NPs practice nursing like nurses. The NP profession has only brought light to our profession and made us shine more brightly. This is in no way provacative or degrading, NPs are excellent for practicing nursing to the height of thier capabilities.

[CoastalPalm]

ACNP isn't that new. It came about in the 90s. I was in one, in fact, during my tenure as a ICU RN. I promise you that PA is better for inpatient hands down. I'm not bashing. I believe we should all be working together, but PA is better training.

 

Right, "newish" compared to the FNP is what I was trying to get at.  As for which is better, well, I personally don't pick a side on those sorts of discussions (I view the whole CRNA vs AA issue the same way).  When I read nursing forums, I see "we can be independent, collaboration is better than supervision!".  When I read this forum, I see "our training is better!".  My view is simply that the inpatient setting is readily accessible to NPs (especially for ACNPs), with many jobs asking for an NP or a PA, as I think it should be, and I don't believe in the "if you want to work in family practice/psych/peds do NP, everything else do PA" argument that some have advanced (though I readily say that having an intraoperative role is easier via the PA route).  I think that one should choose the profession that they are attracted to and matches their interests and goals.  For some, that's nursing/NP, for others, PA.  There are things that the NP world can learn from the PA world, and there are things that the PA world can learn from the NP world. 

[CoastalPalm]

I will admit that I am probably the exception rather than the rule, but being a Nurse Practitioner is a wonderful full career in its own right, and I find it insulting to believe that pre-NPs do not prepare and dedicate their life to what they want to do. Contrary to your belief, becoming a nurse practitioner is not some "side job" that people do when they are sick of being an RN. Yes, the way NP education is currently set up makes it easy for those type of NPs to form and exist...but on the other side of the spectrum there are thousands of highly educated, intelligent, wonderful nurse practitioners dedicated to the field.

 

I agree.  The majority of nurses I know that are doing NP aren't sick of being an RN, and they actually enjoy it.  Interestingly, that neurosurgery FNP that I mentioned earlier talked about how she's not sure about whether she'll do her DNP, and may just take a course or two a semester until she's done.  When she said that, I thought about this forum!  ;).

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Right, "newish" compared to the FNP is what I was trying to get at. As for which is better, well, I personally don't pick a side on those sorts of discussions (I view the whole CRNA vs AA issue the same way). When I read nursing forums, I see "we can be independent, collaboration is better than supervision!". When I read this forum, I see "our training is better!". My view is simply that the inpatient setting is readily accessible to NPs (especially for ACNPs), with many jobs asking for an NP or a PA, as I think it should be, and I don't believe in the "if you want to work in family practice/psych/peds do NP, everything else do PA" argument that some have advanced (though I readily say that having an intraoperative role is easier via the PA route). I think that one should choose the profession that they are attracted to and matches their interests and goals. For some, that's nursing/NP, for others, PA. There are things that the NP world can learn from the PA world, and there are things that the PA world can learn from the NP world.

I absolutely believe that NP should have the type of practice they have fought for. Countless studies prove they have equivalent outcomes. I'm not saying NP training is poor, I'm just saying PA is better. My point is that PA education is better, and we should have at least collaboration like they do. I agree we can all learn from each other and we need to work together politically.

 

Just to show I'm unbiased, I'll state for the record that CRNA is better than AA. I try to see things as they are, not as I want them to be.

[EMEDPA]

Just to show I'm unbiased, I'll state for the record that CRNA is better than AA. I try to see things as they are, not as I want them to be.

 I would say crna legislation is better. prereqs to get into AA are actually harder than crna and include mcat. the training itself is the same.

[MedicalRN]

I absolutely believe that NP should have the type of practice they have fought for. Countless studies prove they have equivalent outcomes. I'm not saying NP training is poor, I'm just saying PA is better. My point is that PA education is better, and we should have at least collaboration like they do. I agree we can all learn from each other and we need to work together politically. Just to show I'm unbiased, I'll state for the record that CRNA is better than AA. I try to see things as they are, not as I want them to be.

 

PA education, on average, is probably better. I will certaintly admit that - I have gone on record on this and other forums saying I do not like the NP education model (too much fluff, not enough clinical). Despite that, there are certaintly subpar PA programs (I once lived near a PA program and the graduate were notorious in the community. People were literally afraid of them and made fun of them. The school had low admission standards and barely taught anything to the students), and there are amazing NP programs (UCSF, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Yale, Duke, etc). So overall, I think a dedicated new grad NP with a good science background and lots of RN experience can be as good/better than a new grad PA.

 

Either way, I do think PAs should be able to have a pathway to autonomy like NPs can.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I would say crna legislation is better. prereqs to get into AA are actually harder than crna and include mcat. the training itself is the same.

I won't clutter up this thread with my reasons. If you ever want to know, I'm available for PM.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

PA education, on average, is probably better. I will certaintly admit that - I have gone on record on this and other forums saying I do not like the NP education model (too much fluff, not enough clinical). Despite that, there are certaintly subpar PA programs (I once lived near a PA program and the graduate were notorious in the community. People were literally afraid of them and made fun of them. The school had low admission standards and barely taught anything to the students), and there are amazing NP programs (UCSF, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Yale, Duke, etc). So overall, I think a dedicated new grad NP with a good science background and lots of RN experience can be as good/better than a new grad PA.

 

Either way, I do think PAs should be able to have a pathway to autonomy like NPs can.

I absolutely agree.