Moderator EMEDPA Posted September 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 13, 2011 Not sure when you went to PA school but those requirements seem to be a product of the modern age. I don't know...a lot of good programs still don't require them or a science degree background...but yes, it's becoming more common... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just419 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Just a question to all of those out there who have a doctorate or are in the process of getting theirs, do you feel it had any positive impact on your clinical skills or your ability to care for your patients where you practice? I'm definitely not against advancing our degree, just looking for an honest opinion. Is it really worth the time, effort, and money to have these additional initials after our names, especially since the majority of us are not involved in research, but patient care. Justin, PA-C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Just a question to all of those out there who have a doctorate or are in the process of getting theirs, do you feel it had any positive impact on your clinical skills or your ability to care for your patients where you practice? I'm definitely not against advancing our degree, just looking for an honest opinion. Is it really worth the time, effort, and money to have these additional initials after our names, especially since the majority of us are not involved in research, but patient care. Justin, PA-C The only positive effect on my clinical skills is a better understanding of the clinical research articles I read. I've always been good with numbers...mmmmm. (Would wrap myself in a number blanket if I could)...but understanding statistics at the Bachelor's or Master's (unless your degree was in research or stats) level is very different from the understanding that you gain at the Doctoral level. Otherwise no. But I didn't pursue it with any illusions that it would make me a better provider. I am interested in research and in order to get grant funding (particularly federal grants) you have to have a doctoral. It was really that simple for me. I don't really care about the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted September 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 13, 2011 some of my coursework is on advances in TB, HIV, tropical medicine, etc so I think it will be of help clinically in those areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaepora Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Why in the world would transitioning from a Masters in Physician Assistant Studies to a Doctorate in Physician Assistant Studies change anything? I think a lot of people on here are putting way too much stock in the title of doctor. You'll all still be Physician Assistants. Just like the DNPs are all still Nurse Practitioners. It's not going to do anything for you. I think the residency programs are a much better idea than the doctorate and I think the PA to MD/DO bridge programs are way better than the doctorate. Why don't you guys just push for the name change and try and support the opening of more bridge programs? Giving yourselves doctorates in "Physician Assisting" will not help AT ALL. The "lay people" are still going to wonder what the heck that really means and then they're just going to think to themselves, well, they're still only assistants. Plus, you'll ALWAYS be behind the NPs, if that's what you're worried about. They had the doctorate first, PLUS they have independent practice. However, if you made a butt load of bridge programs and had a huge number of PAs transitioning to MD/DO (the only actual real doctorate in medicine... and the only true independent practitioner of medicine) then you would unequivocally be ahead of NPs. Even just changing your name and adding a residency would mean more than a fake doctorate where you learn how to assist the real doctors. And the docs and hospital administrators would care more about enhanced clinical skills than being able to read and interpret research. I just can't believe this is even being discussed. CHANGE YOUR FRIGGIN NAME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted September 14, 2011 Administrator Share Posted September 14, 2011 If we were going to make one change in PA education, I'd rather replace all the "MPAS" and similar one-off degrees with a "Master of Science in Medicine" I don't have a problem if everyone else wants their own doctorates--I was chuckling at how one of my preceptors couldn't figure out who this "doctor" who had called him was, and then it turned out to be a DPT. He did not think kindly of world+dog calling themselves "doctor", and I can't say I disagree. I think rather than jumping on the "special doctorates for all" bandwagon, we should more closely align PA training with the MD degree. I really like the "2/3rds of med school in 1/2 the time" sound bite to explain PA education, and I'd rather see us continue in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaepora Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I could not agree more!! What is Physician Assistant Studies? That sounds absolutely ridiculous. If you are practicing medicine, why isn't your degree in Medicine? Unfortunately, it just makes the whole career sound absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Why in the world would transitioning from a Masters in Physician Assistant Studies to a Doctorate in Physician Assistant Studies change anything? I think a lot of people on here are putting way too much stock in the title of doctor. You'll all still be Physician Assistants. Just like the DNPs are all still Nurse Practitioners. It's not going to do anything for you. I think the residency programs are a much better idea than the doctorate and I think the PA to MD/DO bridge programs are way better than the doctorate. Why don't you guys just push for the name change and try and support the opening of more bridge programs? Giving yourselves doctorates in "Physician Assisting" will not help AT ALL. The "lay people" are still going to wonder what the heck that really means and then they're just going to think to themselves, well, they're still only assistants. Plus, you'll ALWAYS be behind the NPs, if that's what you're worried about. They had the doctorate first, PLUS they have independent practice. However, if you made a butt load of bridge programs and had a huge number of PAs transitioning to MD/DO (the only actual real doctorate in medicine... and the only true independent practitioner of medicine) then you would unequivocally be ahead of NPs. Even just changing your name and adding a residency would mean more than a fake doctorate where you learn how to assist the real doctors. And the docs and hospital administrators would care more about enhanced clinical skills than being able to read and interpret research. I just can't believe this is even being discussed. CHANGE YOUR FRIGGIN NAME! No argument here. As I said, my pursuit of a doctorate has NOTHING to do with my clinical practice. It has to do with being an independent researcher and securing my own grant funding. Unfortunately, it's a necessary step to play the grant funding game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Why in the world would transitioning from a Masters in Physician Assistant Studies to a Doctorate in Physician Assistant Studies change anything? I think a lot of people on here are putting way too much stock in the title of doctor. You'll all still be Physician Assistants. Just like the DNPs are all still Nurse Practitioners. It's not going to do anything for you. I think the residency programs are a much better idea than the doctorate and I think the PA to MD/DO bridge programs are way better than the doctorate. Why don't you guys just push for the name change and try and support the opening of more bridge programs? Giving yourselves doctorates in "Physician Assisting" will not help AT ALL. The "lay people" are still going to wonder what the heck that really means and then they're just going to think to themselves, well, they're still only assistants. Plus, you'll ALWAYS be behind the NPs, if that's what you're worried about. They had the doctorate first, PLUS they have independent practice. However, if you made a butt load of bridge programs and had a huge number of PAs transitioning to MD/DO (the only actual real doctorate in medicine... and the only true independent practitioner of medicine) then you would unequivocally be ahead of NPs. Even just changing your name and adding a residency would mean more than a fake doctorate where you learn how to assist the real doctors. And the docs and hospital administrators would care more about enhanced clinical skills than being able to read and interpret research. I just can't believe this is even being discussed. CHANGE YOUR FRIGGIN NAME! I agree that the name change is important but understand that there are clinical and non-clinical situations where having the advanced degree is important. I conjunction with the associate name change, having doctorate level PAs allows entry into greater research, education, and leadership roles. Getting this foot in the door is what enables professions to lobby for themselves and create a more favorable practice environment. All the examples you cite about NPs have taken place because they have the data and leverage in leadership to advance their profession. The PA dcotorate- whether you call it clinical or academic- should not be entry level, but to dismiss it is short sighted. Believe it or not, it should be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I agree that the name change is important but understand that there are clinical and non-clinical situations where having the advanced degree is important. I conjunction with the associate name change, having doctorate level PAs allows entry into greater research, education, and leadership roles. Getting this foot in the door is what enables professions to lobby for themselves and create a more favorable practice environment. All the examples you cite about NPs have taken place because they have the data and leverage in leadership to advance their profession. The PA dcotorate- whether you call it clinical or academic- should not be entry level, but to dismiss it is short sighted. Believe it or not, it should be discussed. The main reason that NPs are successful at the state and national level is that there are nearly 3 million of them in the US, and they are very politically active. They support their professional organizations and contribute to their PACs. Nurses have been around much longer than PAs and have ingrained themselves into every level of health care administration. Policy is made by folks who show up. I agree with graduate education for all PAs, and deployment of PAs into administrative roles, because of the policy implications of creating a good practice environment for PAs in health care systems. This is in the hands of health care bureaucrats, and like nursing, we need to place good PAs in the same roles. I just don't agree that a clinical PA doctorate will make any difference to anyone outside the profession as to how PAs are percieved. If you want to teach, do research, rise in administration; then a Ph.D. is helpful. Creating a heirarchy in the PA profession, and additional hurdles and barriers to the lateral mobility of PAs, is not a good idea in my opinion. Trying to compete head-to-head with 3 million nurses is an exercise in futility. We need to chart our own course, and do things that make sense for the PA profession. The good news is that there is overwhelming demand for all primary care practitioners now and into the foreseeable future. The winner will be the profession that can deploy qualified practitioners into areas of need rapidly and cost-effectively. PAs are well positioned to be successful in this environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The good news is that there is overwhelming demand for all primary care practitioners now and into the foreseeable future. The winner will be the profession that can deploy qualified practitioners into areas of need rapidly and cost-effectively. PAs are well positioned to be successful in this environment. Sounds like the Nurses won that one too.. since they CAN deploy to areas of need without the excess bagge of "supervision" that non-sponsored PAs and some NPs have. I alway scratch my head when I read about states whining about not being able to attract providers to their rural areas... but then read about their "close-supervision" rules on PA practice. Seem many don't get that if the physicians don't want to be there... then the PAs won't be there if they are required/mandated by state law to practice in the same setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Sounds like the Nurses won that one too.. since they CAN deploy to areas of need without the excess bagge of "supervision" that non-sponsored PAs and some NPs have. I alway scratch my head when I read about states whining about not being able to attract providers to their rural areas... but then read about their "close-supervision" rules on PA practice. Seem many don't get that if the physicians don't want to be there... then the PAs won't be there if they are required/mandated by state law to practice in the same setting. No. NPs are actually losing that fight by making NP education more expensive and difficult to obtain. There are more jobs than providers to fill them, in all areas. That was my point. That we are doing ourselves a favor by not doing anything that makes training longer, more expensive or difficult to obtain. PAs will gain a competitive advantage by getting boots on the ground faster than any other providers. The forces that make rural practice undesirable are the same for physicians, PAs and NPs. This is a topic of entirely different thread. I don't know where you practice, but in California, my SP only needs to be available by telecommunication for me to practice. He or she doesn't need to locate in the same town or region in which I practice. The demand for rural providers has put a lot of pressure on legislatures to reduce the barriers to physician / PA practice, and we have made more progress in this area in California in the past ten years than we did in the previous 20 because of this. You will continue to see PA practice enhanced in every jurisdiction in a much more rapid fashion with health care reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 If you want to teach, do research, rise in administration; then a Ph.D. is helpful. Creating a heirarchy in the PA profession, and additional hurdles and barriers to the lateral mobility of PAs, is not a good idea in my opinion. It was my understanding that one can write grants, act as a PI, or obtain teaching positions with a clinical doctorate (eg DHSc) or PhD. There are physicians and nurses who have clinical doctorates who are in research/academic/administrative positions all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 It was my understanding that one can write grants, act as a PI, or obtain teaching positions with a clinical doctorate (eg DHSc) or PhD. There are physicians and nurses who have clinical doctorates who are in research/academic/administrative positions all the time. The DHSc is NOT a clinical doctorate. I have not had a single clinical class in mine. There are no clinical rotations. It is a blend of an admin/research doctorate, with the same number of credits in research that a PhD requires. There are no clinical requirements. Not trying to be picky, but we can't call it something it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted September 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think it is fair to say a DHSc is an applied academic doctorate as opposed to a phd which is a purely research doctorate. we (DHSc) don't do a dissertation, we do an "applied research project" based on a field internship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 It was my understanding that one can write grants, act as a PI, or obtain teaching positions with a clinical doctorate (eg DHSc) or PhD. There are physicians and nurses who have clinical doctorates who are in research/academic/administrative positions all the time. Agreed. I was just making the point that getting a doctorate better serves a PA in research, admin, or education. I see no need or advantage to a PA having doctorate in clinical practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I think it is fair to say a DHSc is an applied academic doctorate as opposed to a phd which is a purely research doctorate.we (DHSc) don't do a dissertation, we do an "applied research project" based on a field internship Agreed. But the number of credit hours are essentially identical to a PhD, the process of a research committee vetting your ideas, and giving you approval is the same. PhD's are focused on translational and bench science, while the DHSc is an applied research. Still a research degree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted September 15, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2011 Agreed. But the number of credit hours are essentially identical to a PhD, the process of a research committee vetting your ideas, and giving you approval is the same. PhD's are focused on translational and bench science, while the DHSc is an applied research. Still a research degree... agreed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 The DHSc is NOT a clinical doctorate. I have not had a single clinical class in mine. There are no clinical rotations. It is a blend of an admin/research doctorate, with the same number of credits in research that a PhD requires. There are no clinical requirements. Not trying to be picky, but we can't call it something it's not. It's not a PhD which is the distinction I am making. Hanson's point was about the value of a non-PhD doctorate in the roles I mentioned. It's clearly a clinician slanted degree when compared to a PhD, regardless of how fine a point you want to put on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LESH Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 It was my understanding that one can write grants, act as a PI, or obtain teaching positions with a clinical doctorate (eg DHSc) or PhD. There are physicians and nurses who have clinical doctorates who are in research/academic/administrative positions all the time. Been a PA educator 25 years. Over that time have been PI on 1.2 mil in HRSA and OSHPD PA training grants. I have a BS. Still writing still expect to get funded. Just saying.:;-D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Been a PA educator 25 years. Over that time have been PI on 1.2 mil in HRSA and OSHPD PA training grants. I have a BS. Still writing still expect to get funded. Just saying.:;-D: Having gone through the process w/ our IRB is my point of reference. Doctorate only, same for PA colleagues who I know elsewhere. Perhaps different for clinical vs workforce research? Is this public sector? (sorry it's all alphabet soup to me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Been a PA educator 25 years. Over that time have been PI on 1.2 mil in HRSA and OSHPD PA training grants. I have a BS. Still writing still expect to get funded. Just saying.:;-D: Training grants may be different than research grants. The point is, even if it isn't a "Hard" requirement, your chances are greatly diminshed without one. UNLESS, you have substantial previous experience, and have managed large prior grants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LESH Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Training grants may be different than research grants. The point is, even if it isn't a "Hard" requirement, your chances are greatly diminshed without one. UNLESS, you have substantial previous experience, and have managed large prior grants. True that physasst. It is different. My point is that PAs are PIs on federal and state grants. Lots of research in Primary care have come from those grants. I know what you are saying, but I've played in that playground. As far as the degree goes I am nobody..lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LESH Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Having gone through the process w/ our IRB is my point of reference. Doctorate only, same for PA colleagues who I know elsewhere. Perhaps different for clinical vs workforce research? Is this public sector? (sorry it's all alphabet soup to me) Wrote grants in Private and Public institutions. The IRBs didn't care as long as direct and indirect cost made them happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradopa Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Having gone through the process w/ our IRB is my point of reference. Doctorate only, same for PA colleagues who I know elsewhere. Perhaps different for clinical vs workforce research? Is this public sector? (sorry it's all alphabet soup to me) There is no requirement for a doctorate for grants. However, the PI is responsible for the successful completion of the grant. In most institutions one of the requirements for being a PI is the demonstrated ability to manage the research. Since original research is part of the PhD, many institutions use that as a requirement. At my institution, largely because of the humungous MPH program, its actually pretty easy to be PI or co-PI without having a doctorate. There are some NIH awards such as a K99 or R00 that reference and seem to require a doctorate to apply (clinical or research) YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.