Title Change 101: Basic questions

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

2 hours ago, OneDayPA-C said:

Physicians are "medical practitioners" as well so that doesn't solve our differences. Physician associate is better IMO because it shows that yeah we're associated with a physician. Whether that means the physician checks a PAs chart once a month, once a week, or even if they work side by side in the OR etc. It doesn't mean i that we're "assistants"or owned by another profession. 

Are physicians then Hospital Administrator Associates? Let's just get our own name and not bother with listing every health professional we collaborate with.

And sometimes physicians NEVER check the chart. I didn't know who mine was the first year out...

[ProSpectre]

3 hours ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

Are physicians then Hospital Administrator Associates? Let's just get our own name and not bother with listing every health professional we collaborate with.

I agree with Lt_Oneal on this one. Regardless of the specific professional title we choose, it should stand on it's own to represent our profession in the 21st century. Of course we will still collaborate with physicians, but whatever PAs vote on for a title change needs to stand on it's own and not rely only on an association with others for legitimacy. The PAs that came before me (many on this board) have built the profession from the ground up to stand on it's own, and it's time we had a title that was representative of that.

 

6 hours ago, OneDayPA-C said:

Physicians are "medical practitioners" as well so that doesn't solve our differences. Physician associate is better IMO because it shows that yeah we're associated with a physician. Whether that means the physician checks a PAs chart once a month, once a week, or even if they work side by side in the OR etc. It doesn't mean i that we're "assistants"or owned by another profession. 

Yes, physicians are technically medical practitioners in the general sense, but how many refer to themselves or other doctors that way? I've actually heard physicians refer to other doctors in their practice as their "physician associates" (and use that as an argument against use of that title for PAs for that very reason). 

No title will come without drawbacks or naysayers; the goal isn't just to find one that works for today (by keeping the PA initials), but one that will carry us successfully forward for the next 50 years and beyond. 

Of course we each have our own opinion on it, but I think a title that is descriptive and stands alone is needed, whether that be "clinical officer" or "medical practitioner".  Whatever it is, it should be one that PAs won't have to bicker about and debate changing for the next 50 years like has occurred over the last 50. 

[kidpresentable]

What about something like “advanced medical clinician,” vis-à-vis the APC thing? Reasonably specific, separates us from the nursing disciplines, sounds kinda cool...

Also, are we stuck with the -C forever? I think I heard someone once say that a certification was different from a license, but I’m not sure what their point was. Either way, I guess AMC-C could still work

[EMEDPA]

15 minutes ago, kidpresentable said:

 

Also, are we stuck with the -C forever? I think I heard someone once say that a certification was different from a license, but I’m not sure what their point was. Either way, I guess AMC-C could still work

my stance on the -C is that we are required to have it, but we are not required to display it. I am a current -c, but all my stuff says

"Emedpa" PA, DMSc. no one has ever asked if I have the -c in a clinical setting. I think it just looks cleaner and is less confusing.

[PACali]

Many institutions have been using the title Advanced practice provider/clinician and physicians are not complaining they are also the "advanced practice provider/clinician"   

 

[Cideous]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:05 PM, corpsman89 said:

Go big or go home.

Medical Practitioner is a title that sounds great, and describes exactly who we are and what we do. 

^^^^^ THIS.

[Guest JMPA]

8 hours ago, ProSpectre said:

Yes, physicians are technically medical practitioners in the general sense, but how many refer to themselves or other doctors that way? I've actually heard physicians refer to other doctors in their practice as their "physician associates" (and use that as an argument against use of that title for PAs for that very reason). 

there is a difference between the term physician associate and associate physician. i am all for the term physician associate. i believe that it describes our role in medicine perfectly. it is simple to adopt. it takes away the misconceived notion that we are assistants, and it is currently being used by several programs. anybody can potentially be an associate of a physician so coining the term would be a first step.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

5 hours ago, PACali said:

Many institutions have been using the title Advanced practice provider/clinician and physicians are not complaining they are also the "advanced practice provider/clinician"   

 

But that term hasn’t become our official title nor has it become legislatively restricted. Once we try that with ANY name you’re going to definitely hear them scream “patient safety” and “patient confusion.” 100% guaranteed.

[corpsman89]

Realistically, Physician Associate is the best option. Our UK counterparts share the title, and even the profession started that way before it was changed to Physician Assistant. Even Yale still calls its program a Physician Associate program. We also keep  the "PA."

BUT, I just worry that its a weak title change. Its not a ground breaker by any means and it will likely not make a ripple in the news media. Part of reason I like Medical Practitioner is because it would cause a very large reaction within the news (I think) and it would cause a major discussion on who we are as provider and WHY that title matches our skill set. 

Sadly, Medical Practitioner will most likely never be adopted because (1) MDs will likely oppose with arguments stated several threads above, (2) NPs will likely oppose because, well, MP just sounds A LOT superior to NP, and (3) our profession will be scared to move forward with MP because of reasons 1, and 2. 

[sas5814]

I agree...I think physician associate would be weak tea....and a hell of a lot of work to get it done. Just not enough bang for the buck IMO.

[Endeavor]

I feel like the only reason why "Medical Practitioner" is even in the convo is because of our APP counterparts Nurse Practitioner, it's like we just saw hmm lets see what the NP's call themselves, we practice medicine while they practice "advanced nursing" (when in reality majority of the time we have very similar if not identical roles) so let's just change nursing to medial and thus "Medical Practitioner" was born. 

I think Physician associate is better because of this:

5 hours ago, JMPA said:

there is a difference between the term physician associate and associate physician. i am all for the term physician associate. i believe that it describes our role in medicine perfectly. it is simple to adopt. it takes away the misconceived notion that we are assistants, and it is currently being used by several programs. anybody can potentially be an associate of a physician so coining the term would be a first step.

 But also we need to universalize the masters degree awarded to PAs and imo it should be MMS= Masters in Medical Sciences. 

That way you can introduce yourself as "Physician Associate _______ and I have a masters in medicine. Boom.

[ProSpectre]

2 hours ago, OneDayPA-C said:

I feel like the only reason why "Medical Practitioner" is even in the convo is because of our APP counterparts Nurse Practitioner, it's like we just saw hmm lets see what the NP's call themselves, we practice medicine while they practice "advanced nursing" (when in reality majority of the time we have very similar if not identical roles) so let's just change nursing to medial and thus "Medical Practitioner" was born. 

I think Physician associate is better because of this:

 But also we need to universalize the masters degree awarded to PAs and imo it should be MMS= Masters in Medical Sciences. 

That way you can introduce yourself as "Physician Associate _______ and I have a masters in medicine. Boom.

Actually medical practitioner is in the conversation because we practice medicine, not because it sounds similar to NP; it literally says what we do in the name, and would require the least amount of explaining and is the least ambiguous option. We already meet the definition of "medical practitioner", and would simply be adopting that as a professional title rather than a general descriptive. That it's similar to Nurse Practitioner isn't a bad thing (in my opinion), but also isn't the reason why it's in the conversation or why it is a good choice.

Others that also fall under that general descriptive of "medical practitioner" (i.e. doctors) will complain, but they'll likely complain about any title change, and I honestly don't see how they can stop it if it's voted on and adopted profession-wide. They have the protected title physician, but medical practitioner is not protected. 

I agree with others that physician associate, while an improvement, isn't enough of a change; if it came down to that or nothing, I would be down, but I hope we can take it farther than that. Like Corpsman89 said, changing our professional title completely will serve to put PAs in a national spotlight, which would be free press and allow us to use that exposure to advocate for why the change is occurring (in relation to OTP and the evolution of the profession over the last half-century). It is also a stand alone name that is progressive enough help in the push of OTP, while making the change to Physician Associate will be seen more as an afterthought.  

 

I do agree that PAEA should push for a change to a standardized degree for PAs though, and I think the MMSc (or MMS if you like) is a good option. 

[corpsman89]

Totally agree on MMS. I Hate MPAS, just plain goofy. 

 

[Joelseff]

Well since Physicians are called "Doctor" because of their degree, why can't people call us "Master?!?"[emoji41]


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[vb315]

20 hours ago, corpsman89 said:

Totally agree on MMS. I Hate MPAS, just plain goofy. 

 

I started a thread on this a few months ago, totally agree! Physicians earn a doctoral degree in medicine, we earn a master's degree in medicine, thus an MMSc degree

[Guest JMPA]

the problem with medical practitioner is the ambiguity, to much overlapping with allied health. Physician associate represents the similar training that PAs recieve. A subtle change such as physician associate makes a marked difference with perception and would improve advancement through legislation while keeping ties to our creation. We can call ourselves medical practitioners now and it is completely lawful, but awful. Of course we are medical practitioners. How about prescribing practitioners or diagnosing practitioners, or physical exam practitioners, or .............

Just keeping it real

[lemurcatta]

MMS is the way to go. Or something like Master of clinical medicine. Let’s stop with the “studies” degreees. 

[ProSpectre]

2 hours ago, JMPA said:

the problem with medical practitioner is the ambiguity, to much overlapping with allied health. Physician associate represents the similar training that PAs recieve. A subtle change such as physician associate makes a marked difference with perception and would improve advancement through legislation while keeping ties to our creation. We can call ourselves medical practitioners now and it is completely lawful, but awful. Of course we are medical practitioners. How about prescribing practitioners or diagnosing practitioners, or physical exam practitioners, or .............

Just keeping it real

I have to disagree. If you use the actual definition of "medical practitioner" in Merriam-Webster, it states "a person who is skilled in the science of medicine" . No allied health professions are included in the primary definition (although "doctor" is included as the second definition). PAs are the only profession besides physicians who actually practice medicine, and therefore it is logical that the definition applies to us as well (I don't think that's disputed). Medical doctors have the protected title "physician", and we could claim medical practitioner as a title to refer to our profession, considering that we also practice medicine. It makes sense, and allows us a title that is descriptive of what we do without divorcing ourselves completely from our roots. It is familiar, but enough of a change to show that we stand on our own as a profession, which is exactly what OTP is about. 

I understand that many PAs are tied to the initials, and Physician Associate has precedent, but it is definitely a vague term; while I am not completely opposed to it (it's still an improvement over the current title), I just don't think it is the best option, and doesn't at all describe what we actually do. Medical Practitioner does. 

Subtlety has it's place, but I don't think this is it. 

[Hope2PA]

To not want to compare PA to NP because PA has more rigorous education is kind of mute point. Articles that I've read, including the new Pamphlet by AAPA, your Physician Assistant can do... states Physician Assistant Master Program is two - three years. If you read public campaigns about Master Nurse Practitioner, they also state three years and do not mention that it is 3 part-time years.  Although we are aware the Graduate hours are usually double for PA vs NP and PA clinical hours are three times NP, the general population nor legislatures know that difference, I've become more aware recently that often people think NP's have much more education.  So comparing ourselves in the public eye may not be negative. If title was changed to Medical Practitioner, then the assumption that Physician Assistants are "less educated" helpers of Physician's that are not to the level of NP, may be eliminated. The Medical Practitioner would at least be seen as an equal Advance Practice Provider.  Then as people ask difference between Nurse Practitioner vs Medical Practitioner it would make much more sense to explain medical vs. Nursing model and course/clinical requirements.

Someone above indicated Physician Associate was better than Assistant, but why go for a little better, just to keep initial's same. I agree, plus there are a couple states that have already passed laws for Associate Physician's.  They will likely gain more ground before PA title change and OTP.  At that point the title Physician Associate may see more opposition from Physicians than a title like Medical Practitioner. A new title, actually more aligned to our co Advance Practice Provider's, the NP's would be the most politically viable option.  The Practitioner title already works, its a proven commodity that has propelled them well above PA in many states.  

Side note, Also agree with the Master Medical Science(MMS) ....Doctor Medical Science(DMS). Name tag, John Doe, MMS-C, Medical Practitioner

[PACali]

On 3/30/2018 at 11:53 AM, OneDayPA-C said:

I feel like the only reason why "Medical Practitioner" is even in the convo is because of our APP counterparts Nurse Practitioner, it's like we just saw hmm lets see what the NP's call themselves, we practice medicine while they practice "advanced nursing" (when in reality majority of the time we have very similar if not identical roles) so let's just change nursing to medial and thus "Medical Practitioner" was born. 

I think Physician associate is better because of this:

 But also we need to universalize the masters degree awarded to PAs and imo it should be MMS= Masters in Medical Sciences. 

That way you can introduce yourself as "Physician Associate _______ and I have a masters in medicine. Boom.

To me, MP is more similar to MD when you explained the meaning behind the initial.  

MD = Medical Doctor 

MP= Medical Practitioner 

Medical Practitioner sounds more official. It actually brings us closer to MD. ( Which AMA will have a problem with that) but they have problem with everything we do anyway. T

Medical Practitioner will work internationally because it is simple to define. It will make sense because the definition is in the title. Good luck translating Physician Associate in Chinese or Japanese or any other languages. Translating Physician Assistant with or without the " 's" is the same as Physician's assistant in Chinese. We wasted our time to get rid of the " 'S " 

 

 

 

[PACali]

On 3/30/2018 at 6:34 AM, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

But that term hasn’t become our official title nor has it become legislatively restricted. Once we try that with ANY name you’re going to definitely hear them scream “patient safety” and “patient confusion.” 100% guaranteed.

That's definitely a valid point. 

My experience, the average physicians don't care what we called ourselves.  The problem is in the boardroom/AMA. 

By now, everyone should know, the AMA will not support anything we do to advance the profession. I realized whenever they don't support something we want, that we are doing something right. Will AMA support OTP? No way. But my collaborating physician does. The change will not come easy. If they fight, we know we are doing something right.