andersenpa Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 So, the Associate name change has got me thinking. shameless plug in case you can't read the 28 pt font above.... http://associatenamechange.com/ My WA practice plan lists my "Sponsoring Physician"..... And we always talk about our "SP"..... Similar to the assistant>>>associate change, keeping the same initials..... Could we change our wording to list our physician alliance as our Sponsoring Physicians? Very few PAs (based on what I have personally heard, no data) practice with direct supervision. The common scenario is supervision as needed. Additionally, physicians are our professional colleagues (WHO BENEFIT GREATLY FROM OUR ROLE) who associate with us in our practice of medicine. I know, I know....I hear you out there, claiming that this is a push for independent practice. Put that aside for a moment. If we are in a position to redefine our profession and role, is this an accurate descriptor of our relationship with docs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 So, the Associate name change has got me thinking. shameless plug in case you can't read the 28 pt font above.... http://associatenamechange.com/ My WA practice plan lists my "Sponsoring Physician"..... And we always talk about our "SP"..... Similar to the assistant>>>associate change, keeping the same initials..... Could we change our wording to list our physician alliance as our Sponsoring Physicians? Very few PAs (based on what I have personally heard, no data) practice with direct supervision. The common scenario is supervision as needed. Additionally, physicians are our professional colleagues (WHO BENEFIT GREATLY FROM OUR ROLE) who associate with us in our practice of medicine. I know, I know....I hear you out there, claiming that this is a push for independent practice. Put that aside for a moment. If we are in a position to redefine our profession and role, is this an accurate descriptor of our relationship with docs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 If we are in a position to redefine our profession and role, is this an accurate descriptor of our relationship with docs? I think this depends on where we are in our experience with practice. New grads are most often 'supervised'... while experienced PAs are often what we here consider 'sponsored.' So I would be down for teasing that out IF there was a fluid (non-static) experience requirement mandated. Something like a minimum amount of time practicing in a given area (specialty) to move from "supervision" to "sponsorship". Change specialties... clock resets. Contrarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 If we are in a position to redefine our profession and role, is this an accurate descriptor of our relationship with docs? I think this depends on where we are in our experience with practice. New grads are most often 'supervised'... while experienced PAs are often what we here consider 'sponsored.' So I would be down for teasing that out IF there was a fluid (non-static) experience requirement mandated. Something like a minimum amount of time practicing in a given area (specialty) to move from "supervision" to "sponsorship". Change specialties... clock resets. Contrarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 To make it less subjective- perhaps some basic "checklist": 1. 2000 hrs/1 yr FT practice 2. Authorization of sponsorship (by SP)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 To make it less subjective- perhaps some basic "checklist": 1. 2000 hrs/1 yr FT practice 2. Authorization of sponsorship (by SP)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 25, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2011 yup, I've got sponsoring physicians too. definitely the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 25, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2011 yup, I've got sponsoring physicians too. definitely the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 To make it less subjective- perhaps some basic "checklist": 1. 2000 hrs/1 yr FT practice 2. Authorization of sponsorship (by SP)? I was thinking more like 6000hrs (3yrs is equal in length of time... NOT necessarily the actual 80 hr weeks, VOLUME of patients or advancing acuity... to short FP residency) and nothing to do with the SP "authorization" cause you know there will be situations where "The Man" will just wanna hold a brotha down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 To make it less subjective- perhaps some basic "checklist": 1. 2000 hrs/1 yr FT practice 2. Authorization of sponsorship (by SP)? I was thinking more like 6000hrs (3yrs is equal in length of time... NOT necessarily the actual 80 hr weeks, VOLUME of patients or advancing acuity... to short FP residency) and nothing to do with the SP "authorization" cause you know there will be situations where "The Man" will just wanna hold a brotha down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesscbv Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesscbv Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physio Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? It is currently "sponsoring" physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physio Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? It is currently "sponsoring" physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 26, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? for a pa who has not yet passed boards it is supervising. once you are a pa-c it is sponsoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 26, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? for a pa who has not yet passed boards it is supervising. once you are a pa-c it is sponsoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? I think its "Supervising" physician for PAs and "Sponsoring" physician for PA-Cs. Atleast thats how I understand it since they purposely use "supervising" with PAs and "sponsoring" with PA-Cs. "Supervising" physicians MUST review and must sign all documentation of the PA within 2 days. (WAC 246-918-130) A physician assistant and supervising physician shall ensure that, with respect to each patient, all activities, functions, services and treatment measures are immediately and properly documented in written form by the physician assistant. Every written entry shall be reviewed and countersigned by the supervising physician within two working days unless a different time period is authorized by the commission. "Sponsoring" physician must only ensure adequate "consultation" with NO madatory chart review or signatures. (WAC 249-918-140) It shall be the responsibility of the certified physician assistant and the sponsoring physician to ensure that appropriate consultation and review of work are provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm confused. In Washington is it currently "Sponsoring" or "Supervising" physician? I think its "Supervising" physician for PAs and "Sponsoring" physician for PA-Cs. Atleast thats how I understand it since they purposely use "supervising" with PAs and "sponsoring" with PA-Cs. "Supervising" physicians MUST review and must sign all documentation of the PA within 2 days. (WAC 246-918-130) A physician assistant and supervising physician shall ensure that, with respect to each patient, all activities, functions, services and treatment measures are immediately and properly documented in written form by the physician assistant. Every written entry shall be reviewed and countersigned by the supervising physician within two working days unless a different time period is authorized by the commission. "Sponsoring" physician must only ensure adequate "consultation" with NO madatory chart review or signatures. (WAC 249-918-140) It shall be the responsibility of the certified physician assistant and the sponsoring physician to ensure that appropriate consultation and review of work are provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 for a pa who has not yet passed boards it is supervising.once you are a pa-c it is sponsoring. Hey E... What if you loose the C... as in never take and/or pass PANRE ...???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 for a pa who has not yet passed boards it is supervising.once you are a pa-c it is sponsoring. Hey E... What if you loose the C... as in never take and/or pass PANRE ...???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 26, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2011 Hey E... What if you loose the C... as in never take and/or pass PANRE ...???? I imagine you revert to "supervising" rules but not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 26, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2011 Hey E... What if you loose the C... as in never take and/or pass PANRE ...???? I imagine you revert to "supervising" rules but not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I imagine you revert to "supervising" rules but not sure. Yeah... which is what has Mike worried considering the recently revealed problems with the new PANRE and that he has to take it in a month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I imagine you revert to "supervising" rules but not sure. Yeah... which is what has Mike worried considering the recently revealed problems with the new PANRE and that he has to take it in a month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 I would like to hear feedback from those who submitted a response in favor of SUPERVISING......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.