andersenpa Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Read it through Clinician 1: Login to Clinician 1: Clinician 1 or, nice to see, on the AFPPA's site: AFPPA Membership Supports PA Name Change from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPA Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Pro-name change PAs need to infiltrate the AAPA's house of delegates, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brannow Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I really disagree that a name change is required. Most of the arguments for a name change just seem like whining. Are PA's confused with MA's, yes, but once the pt is educated on the difference, it's no longer an issue and I think it's happening a lot less than it used to. Bringing our profession across the pond is very important, but as with introducing anything new to a different culture, it takes time and education of the public. As far as prospective students, if they don't do the research and fully understand what a PA does, they don't have any business applying to PA school and they won't get in anyway. As far as doctors not wanting just another assistant is the most asinine of the arguments, there isn't a doc worth his/her salt that doesn't know/value the role of a PA. Whereas the statements made about leaving the name are much more logical to me. As the public becomes more and more aware the confusion will subside. As the new graduates inundate the field, our presence will grow in the field and we can educate more pt's as to what PA's really do. I see this in the military all the time, change for the sake of change doesn't do anyone any favors....it just costs a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marilynpac Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I Well I guess that's where I disagree with you brannow, yes we are constantly educating pt and public about the difference between PAs and MAs. That's why the name change. You're not out practicing yet but when you do it gets old and tired. A name change eliminates that instantly. Many states have already endorsed the name change, I did a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPA Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 This is far from change for the sake of change; 'assistant' is a misnomer that can and should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 30, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2011 physician associate keeps the initials "pa" which is the only name recognition we have. ask anyone trying to start their own clinic what the asst. name brings with it...." assistants don't have their own pts so why would anyone see one"..".but you can't work without a doctor in the office directly supervising you so why would I want to give you a loan to work alone...., etc...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicnubs Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 There are convincing arguments to be made on both sides of the discussion. Despite the name-calling and oratorical demonization (that happens on both sides) it comes down to a simple matter of weighing the pros and cons of the name change as they apply to our patients (do let me know if I have left something out or not considered something on either side, I like to keep myself informed). Our own feelings as PAs on the matter should not be the main concern. Pros *Worry*: it reduces the patients concern over being treated by an "assistant" rather than a "doctor" (this brings up the faultiness of using the misunderstood "doctor" moniker in general, but that's a secondary factor). It's undeniable that there is a general perception of "assistants" as having menial or tertiary presence and qualifications. A potential after-effect of the change to "associate" would be that patients would be more likely to adamantly follow through with our prescribed treatments, evidenced by research showing patients are less likely to stick to healthy eating guidelines when told so by a physician of percievedly unhealthy weight. If the patient (or anyone in any context, for that matter) doesn't trust you, they are consciously and subconsciously less likely to believe you. *Acceptance*: the re-branding of the PA would likely expedite patient acceptance of PAs as PCPs; which, largely, we are. Cons *Cost*: realistically, the change will cost money in a number of different ways, which puts another financial stressor on an already stressed health-care system budget. *Confusion*: potential confusion over what a Physician Associate is and what happened to Physician Assistants. So the ultimate question is: which is more beneficial to the patients? I think it's a decision better left to those a lot smarter (and better with numbers) than I to decide. But given the pros and cons in the context of patients, it seems that the long-term benefits in the form of reduced apprehension and the ultimately better suited portrayal of our qualifications trumps the initial detriments of the change. The earlier the change happens, the less it will cost considering constantly changing legislation (and subsequent necessary changes that will need to be made in wording that would happen afterward) and the inevitable expansion of the number of PAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 So the ultimate question is: which is more beneficial to the patients? We need to lookat what is most beneficial to patients AND our profession. If we don't advocate for ourselves, no one else will. Looking through the lens of only pushing for patient-centered issues while ignoring our own professional development could hurt us in the end. Every other group pushes their own agenda, we should as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marilynpac Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 "If we don't advocate for ourselves, no one else will".....in a nutshell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPA Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The 'confusion' argument against a name change is almost comical. Adult patients would easily understand that PAs changed one word in their title's initials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicnubs Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 We need to lookat what is most beneficial to patients AND our profession. If we don't advocate for ourselves, no one else will. Looking through the lens of only pushing for patient-centered issues while ignoring our own professional development could hurt us in the end. Every other group pushes their own agenda, we should as well. I said: "Our own feelings as PAs on the matter should not be the main concern." Promotion of PAs should not be an issue of equal weight to that of whats is best for the patients. I do think we should advocate ourselves if we deserve it (and I think we do). Advocacy for the sake of advocacy is illogical in the context of the common good. That's why so many people are angry at politicians and about partisan media outlets. The same reason physicians are angry at malpractice lawyers. Pursuing compensation for a patient of bad medical practice is valid and should absolutely be allowed, but in the end malpractice insurance costs and lawsuit rates are making good care providers leave the field, shying potential new PCPs away from medicine and exacerbating the national shortage. We must base our arguments - our demands - on logic. A much more convincing and ethical argument can be made if we prove to people why what we want will benefit the majority, those that we serve: the patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicnubs Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The 'confusion' argument against a name change is almost comical. Adult patients would easily understand that PAs changed one word in their title's initials. I agree. I did include it though, because it is inevitably brought up each time this debate occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyboynp Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm not actually a PA (I'm an NP) but after working as a nurse for several years in an emergency room with PAs, MDs, and NPs, I can definitely see how a name change could be beneficial. A lot of times, if the patient was seen by a PA (or an NP for that matter) after the provider left, they would ask me when the doctor was going to be in. I would explain to them that the PA or NP was in fact a provider and was more than able to take care of them and properly treat and diagnose them. Often, this would lead to the patient saying, "well, they said they are the doctor's assistant." or in the case of NPs, "but they are a nurse." I would then have to explain to them the meaning of either, and how that PAs or NPs were well trained clinicians, but there were physicians present if they in fact had any questions or concerns about their care. Of course not all patients said anything or had these concerns. Many were well aware of what a PA or an NP were, and were comfortable and confident that they could take care of them. Some patients wouldn't say anything until the end, or they'd send a complaint form later saying that they were "never seen by the doctor, I was just seen by his assistant" or "by a nurse." I think that a name change could help in some of these circumstances. Sometimes, although I am proud of starting out as a nurse, that my title didn't include the word nurse in it. For some patients this leads to confusion, thinking that I'm "just a nurse" despite the fact that the public is more educated these days, it is at times still a problem. I hate to admit it, but sometimes I introduce myself like this: "Hello, I'm a practitioner here in the ER and I'm going to be taking care of you today." I've noticed that when I leave out "nurse" that their is less questioning. If they do ask, or refer to me as doctor, I do notify them that I am in fact a nurse practitioner, but many times they just take it at face value and the problem never comes up. I don't feel like this is unethical, because sometimes it's just easier to avoid the explanation, especially in an ER that sees more than 40k patients a year in a rural area. So, I can see where taking assistant out of the title could definitely have some positive benefits. In a perfect world, patients would be aware that PAs are well qualified, knowledgeable, well-educated clinicians and the name wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately it isn't a perfect world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 ^^^ Wow KyboyNP, I guess you guys have problems with your title too. Good perspective. I always thought pts focused more on the "practitioner" part of your title, and the "assistant" part of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.