Veritas86 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 My thing is this. Nursing pushes for less supervision. (And if anyone can give me the concrete reasoning behind this, I'm all ears. Genuinely curious) Why not as PAs push for the same collaborative relationships that NPs have, or if not a good idea at present, make a way. My thought was with prior hx in healthcare, with the example of paramedicine. And yes, I'll admit that idea has flaws. Point being, PAs in the current system are seen as ----> generally <--- less respectable than NPs. A lot of the problem as I understand it stems from advocacy and representation of the profession. I believe the name change to associate is a good start, honestly. It offers a chance to begin more funadamental changes. It's what PAs choose to do with that opportunity that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas86 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 My thing is this. Nursing pushes for less supervision. (And if anyone can give me the concrete reasoning behind this, I'm all ears. Genuinely curious) Why not as PAs push for the same collaborative relationships that NPs have, or if not a good idea at present, make a way. My thought was with prior hx in healthcare, with the example of paramedicine. And yes, I'll admit that idea has flaws. Point being, PAs in the current system are seen as ----> generally <--- less respectable than NPs. A lot of the problem as I understand it stems from advocacy and representation of the profession. I believe the name change to associate is a good start, honestly. It offers a chance to begin more funadamental changes. It's what PAs choose to do with that opportunity that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 Oneal nailed it... PAs being under the BOM puts them under the thumb of people who have no interest in their advancement beyond what suits them best. As long as it works in favor of doctors, they will sign off on items that advance PAs. In PAs had a choice, would it be better to be supervised by the BON or BOM? EXACTLY problem is that answering to the BON instead of BOM is that the nurses gets to determine their own fate - PA's fate is decided by BOM and hence we are being left behind and the NP's making advances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 Oneal nailed it... PAs being under the BOM puts them under the thumb of people who have no interest in their advancement beyond what suits them best. As long as it works in favor of doctors, they will sign off on items that advance PAs. In PAs had a choice, would it be better to be supervised by the BON or BOM? EXACTLY problem is that answering to the BON instead of BOM is that the nurses gets to determine their own fate - PA's fate is decided by BOM and hence we are being left behind and the NP's making advances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdtpac Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I believe a few states already have pa medical boards. Actually there are 10 states, for the purposes of licensure application and oversight, where PA’s are not directly regulated by a medical board: Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants Connecticut, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Department of Public Health - PA Licensing Illinois Division of Professional Regulation Iowa Board of Physician Assistant Examiner's, Department of Health Massachusetts Board of Registration of PAs, Department of Public Health Michigan Task Force on Physician Assistants, Department of Public Health MISSOURI, Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, State Advisory Commission for Physician Assistants New York State Education Department; Office of the Professions Utah PA Licensing Board, Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission Note: Many states have physician assistant advisory committees under the control of state medical boards However, in no way can it be construed that PAs in these states have less restrictive or more liberal scopes of practice. As a matter of fact, if you were to do complete review of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas Islands practice acts PAs you'll find they all say the same basic thing: PAs practice medicine under the direction and supervision (and some say control) a physician licensed to practice medicine or surgery in that jurisdiction. The big difference in all of the practice acts, notwithstanding prescriptive authority, is how supervision is defined in the law and interpreted in rules created by the medical boards or the above mentioned regulatory agencies. Ohio was once regarded by many in the PA profession to be the most restrictive state in the country. However, because of changes to the statutes in 2006 we are much less restrictive been a majority of states.(If we had weather like the southern states we would be doing pretty good) Under the new statutes supervision(in short): A. does not require physician to be physically present where services are render but must be available by electronic means and no more than one hour (60 miles) away. B. the PA can practice in any setting and provide services within the normal scope of the supervising physician’s practice. With the caveat that healthcare facilities can credential PAs to provide any service that is not restricted in statutes(which is only performing abortions and administering anesthesia at present) and the medical board has no jurisdiction over that authority. C. no countersignatures are required for any patient encounter including writing orders or prescriptions. D. quality assurance and medical record reviews requires supervising physician to evaluate the PAs performance a minimum twice within the first year of practice and yearly after that. E. schedule III-V physician delegated prescriptive authority. So it isn't all that bad, broken or unbearable and I agree with PAMAC a title change to physician associate will not change our scope of practice at all. Advanced practice nurses basically have the same authority with the exception: #1) they are regulated by the nursing board, #2) their formulary although similar can be amended easier, and #3) they were just granted schedule II prescriptive authority. In many instances, PAs and APNs are interchangeable, work together in the same department or have similar roles. I agree when someone else mentioned that percentage of APNs that truly practice independently or own their own practices is miniscule. The only reason, in my opinion, that APNs have more public recognition and notoriety is because they ride on the coat tails of the 100s of thousands of registered nurses in this country, both politically and financially. In all my years of practice to keep myself grounded and focusing on what PAs provide and not worrying about what some other provider was able to do I simply looked at PA practice in 4 terms: #1) scope of practice is determined by law and there is not much I can do about that other than to stay involved and support may state association (and the Academy). #2) supervision has nothing to do with anything but the supervising physician’s comfort level with letting go of some of their authority(regardless of any past experience you might have as a PA or anything else). You have a Doc with OCD and you're going to be kept on a leash, believe me been there many times, #3) AUTONOMY is earned by the quality of service you provide and respect you receive from physicians, nurses, your peers and more importantly your patients. #4) I never contemplated PA practice being completely independent. When that day comes you might as well call us all physicians. This will only happen with sweeping reforms in the overall structure of medical education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdtpac Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I believe a few states already have pa medical boards. Actually there are 10 states, for the purposes of licensure application and oversight, where PA’s are not directly regulated by a medical board: Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants Connecticut, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Department of Public Health - PA Licensing Illinois Division of Professional Regulation Iowa Board of Physician Assistant Examiner's, Department of Health Massachusetts Board of Registration of PAs, Department of Public Health Michigan Task Force on Physician Assistants, Department of Public Health MISSOURI, Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, State Advisory Commission for Physician Assistants New York State Education Department; Office of the Professions Utah PA Licensing Board, Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission Note: Many states have physician assistant advisory committees under the control of state medical boards However, in no way can it be construed that PAs in these states have less restrictive or more liberal scopes of practice. As a matter of fact, if you were to do complete review of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas Islands practice acts PAs you'll find they all say the same basic thing: PAs practice medicine under the direction and supervision (and some say control) a physician licensed to practice medicine or surgery in that jurisdiction. The big difference in all of the practice acts, notwithstanding prescriptive authority, is how supervision is defined in the law and interpreted in rules created by the medical boards or the above mentioned regulatory agencies. Ohio was once regarded by many in the PA profession to be the most restrictive state in the country. However, because of changes to the statutes in 2006 we are much less restrictive been a majority of states.(If we had weather like the southern states we would be doing pretty good) Under the new statutes supervision(in short): A. does not require physician to be physically present where services are render but must be available by electronic means and no more than one hour (60 miles) away. B. the PA can practice in any setting and provide services within the normal scope of the supervising physician’s practice. With the caveat that healthcare facilities can credential PAs to provide any service that is not restricted in statutes(which is only performing abortions and administering anesthesia at present) and the medical board has no jurisdiction over that authority. C. no countersignatures are required for any patient encounter including writing orders or prescriptions. D. quality assurance and medical record reviews requires supervising physician to evaluate the PAs performance a minimum twice within the first year of practice and yearly after that. E. schedule III-V physician delegated prescriptive authority. So it isn't all that bad, broken or unbearable and I agree with PAMAC a title change to physician associate will not change our scope of practice at all. Advanced practice nurses basically have the same authority with the exception: #1) they are regulated by the nursing board, #2) their formulary although similar can be amended easier, and #3) they were just granted schedule II prescriptive authority. In many instances, PAs and APNs are interchangeable, work together in the same department or have similar roles. I agree when someone else mentioned that percentage of APNs that truly practice independently or own their own practices is miniscule. The only reason, in my opinion, that APNs have more public recognition and notoriety is because they ride on the coat tails of the 100s of thousands of registered nurses in this country, both politically and financially. In all my years of practice to keep myself grounded and focusing on what PAs provide and not worrying about what some other provider was able to do I simply looked at PA practice in 4 terms: #1) scope of practice is determined by law and there is not much I can do about that other than to stay involved and support may state association (and the Academy). #2) supervision has nothing to do with anything but the supervising physician’s comfort level with letting go of some of their authority(regardless of any past experience you might have as a PA or anything else). You have a Doc with OCD and you're going to be kept on a leash, believe me been there many times, #3) AUTONOMY is earned by the quality of service you provide and respect you receive from physicians, nurses, your peers and more importantly your patients. #4) I never contemplated PA practice being completely independent. When that day comes you might as well call us all physicians. This will only happen with sweeping reforms in the overall structure of medical education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwallac4 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 My thing is this. Nursing pushes for less supervision. (And if anyone can give me the concrete reasoning behind this, I'm all ears. Genuinely curious) Why not as PAs push for the same collaborative relationships that NPs have, or if not a good idea at present, make a way. My thought was with prior hx in healthcare, with the example of paramedicine. And yes, I'll admit that idea has flaws. Point being, PAs in the current system are seen as ----> generally <--- less respectable than NPs. A lot of the problem as I understand it stems from advocacy and representation of the profession. I believe the name change to associate is a good start, honestly. It offers a chance to begin more funadamental changes. It's what PAs choose to do with that opportunity that matters. Not sure where you are from? Maybe the lobby jungle of the nurse union, but in the six different states I lived NP's are definitely not more respected. They may have equal respect, but at times are less respected from the people who know most about medicine (Doctors). If you go to a nurse manager or administrator (who lack knowledge about medicine) they often like nurses better. This is due to the administrators and managers being nurses themselves. Truth is there are millions of nurses, which means tons of cash for their lobby efforts and that is what drives their cushy independence. If you don't understand that then you have a lot to learn about life. Money is what drives the world of politics. Our laws governing our independence are decided by politicians. The group with the most cash, best public message (influence) and votes wins. Simple as that! It is difficult for our profession to compete, as we are relatively small. We don't have to fight against them just make sure we are on par at least as a profession. We obviously do not have the money or numbers to make this happen right now. In reality it would make more sense to govern NP/PA together and take the same boards. Make the board tougher then either professions current boards and let the cream come to the top and empty the rest in the garbage. Just my thoughts. By the way your quoted msg. above stinks of trolling. Especially, as a member who just joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwallac4 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 My thing is this. Nursing pushes for less supervision. (And if anyone can give me the concrete reasoning behind this, I'm all ears. Genuinely curious) Why not as PAs push for the same collaborative relationships that NPs have, or if not a good idea at present, make a way. My thought was with prior hx in healthcare, with the example of paramedicine. And yes, I'll admit that idea has flaws. Point being, PAs in the current system are seen as ----> generally <--- less respectable than NPs. A lot of the problem as I understand it stems from advocacy and representation of the profession. I believe the name change to associate is a good start, honestly. It offers a chance to begin more funadamental changes. It's what PAs choose to do with that opportunity that matters. Not sure where you are from? Maybe the lobby jungle of the nurse union, but in the six different states I lived NP's are definitely not more respected. They may have equal respect, but at times are less respected from the people who know most about medicine (Doctors). If you go to a nurse manager or administrator (who lack knowledge about medicine) they often like nurses better. This is due to the administrators and managers being nurses themselves. Truth is there are millions of nurses, which means tons of cash for their lobby efforts and that is what drives their cushy independence. If you don't understand that then you have a lot to learn about life. Money is what drives the world of politics. Our laws governing our independence are decided by politicians. The group with the most cash, best public message (influence) and votes wins. Simple as that! It is difficult for our profession to compete, as we are relatively small. We don't have to fight against them just make sure we are on par at least as a profession. We obviously do not have the money or numbers to make this happen right now. In reality it would make more sense to govern NP/PA together and take the same boards. Make the board tougher then either professions current boards and let the cream come to the top and empty the rest in the garbage. Just my thoughts. By the way your quoted msg. above stinks of trolling. Especially, as a member who just joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 JDTPAC- thanks for the research into pa medical boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 JDTPAC- thanks for the research into pa medical boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 same way with masters to PhDs in research and academia. If you want to learn more, you should be able to without starting the entire process over, to me. Every PhD program I am aware of REQUIRES a Masters to get in......while theoretically you can get in with a Bachelors, most programs are so competitive, that you wouldn't have much of a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 same way with masters to PhDs in research and academia. If you want to learn more, you should be able to without starting the entire process over, to me. Every PhD program I am aware of REQUIRES a Masters to get in......while theoretically you can get in with a Bachelors, most programs are so competitive, that you wouldn't have much of a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 Every PhD program I am aware of REQUIRES a Masters to get in......while theoretically you can get in with a Bachelors, most programs are so competitive, that you wouldn't have much of a chance... wake forest has an entry level pa/phd program. you must apply to both the ms level pa program and phd basic medical science phd at the same time. there are also 5-6 pa/pharmd programs which are entry level from a bs(granted not phd but still a doctorate of sorts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2012 Every PhD program I am aware of REQUIRES a Masters to get in......while theoretically you can get in with a Bachelors, most programs are so competitive, that you wouldn't have much of a chance... wake forest has an entry level pa/phd program. you must apply to both the ms level pa program and phd basic medical science phd at the same time. there are also 5-6 pa/pharmd programs which are entry level from a bs(granted not phd but still a doctorate of sorts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 wake forest has an entry level pa/phd program. you must apply to both the ms level pa program and phd basic medical science phd at the same time.there are also 5-6 pa/pharmd programs which are entry level from a bs(granted not phd but still a doctorate of sorts). PharmD is different, and several PhD programs that I know of also AWARD an MS during the PhD process, along the lines of Wake Forest, but that is a different animal. And all that does is lengthen the PhD. Instead of 3-5 years, it's like 5-8. It's not like a clinical degree, you can't really shorten the research process which is what takes so friggin long. The DHSc does shorten it, quite a bit, but that's by doing an APPLIED research project, which is very different than a bench project where you might have to build your own analyzers etc. For example, a very close friend is a PhD atmospheric physicist. (Geoclimatologist now) When he completed his PhD, he was measuring something in the ionosphere. He spent almost two years building and validating the equipment to measure the particles..(it's not something you can just buy at the store)...then, another 2 years conducting the study, and then a year to analyze it and write it up.... This stuff takes time. Good research takes time and commitment. Besides, as I tell all the physicians I work with....it's a real doctorate....not a fake one like an MD. LOL..... BTW, I've asked about 18 physicians I know that have MD/PhD combined degrees which one was harder.......I only had one say that they were about equal. NONE said the MD was harder. 17 of them laughed, some a little, some hysterically, and said that there was no comparison. Some said the PhD was only a little harder, some said it was a joke to compare the two...and one said "Are you f*cking kidding me?"......based on that, the PhD is much harder than an MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 wake forest has an entry level pa/phd program. you must apply to both the ms level pa program and phd basic medical science phd at the same time.there are also 5-6 pa/pharmd programs which are entry level from a bs(granted not phd but still a doctorate of sorts). PharmD is different, and several PhD programs that I know of also AWARD an MS during the PhD process, along the lines of Wake Forest, but that is a different animal. And all that does is lengthen the PhD. Instead of 3-5 years, it's like 5-8. It's not like a clinical degree, you can't really shorten the research process which is what takes so friggin long. The DHSc does shorten it, quite a bit, but that's by doing an APPLIED research project, which is very different than a bench project where you might have to build your own analyzers etc. For example, a very close friend is a PhD atmospheric physicist. (Geoclimatologist now) When he completed his PhD, he was measuring something in the ionosphere. He spent almost two years building and validating the equipment to measure the particles..(it's not something you can just buy at the store)...then, another 2 years conducting the study, and then a year to analyze it and write it up.... This stuff takes time. Good research takes time and commitment. Besides, as I tell all the physicians I work with....it's a real doctorate....not a fake one like an MD. LOL..... BTW, I've asked about 18 physicians I know that have MD/PhD combined degrees which one was harder.......I only had one say that they were about equal. NONE said the MD was harder. 17 of them laughed, some a little, some hysterically, and said that there was no comparison. Some said the PhD was only a little harder, some said it was a joke to compare the two...and one said "Are you f*cking kidding me?"......based on that, the PhD is much harder than an MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hubbardtim48 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 [h=2]That’s not many details Oneal. I can show you many details if you would like, but what’s the point? You apparently don't like PA students that have prior HCE or you are this way to everyone. Don't be mad at me because I have a good HCE background and will do very well with those skills as a PA. Why humility? hu·mil·i·ty / [hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Noun: the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc. Origin:1275–1325; Middle English humilite < Latin humilitās. See humble, -ty2 Seems like you have some arrogance... or something to prove...? I don’t see anything wrong with thinking my past HCE is great as is relevant to a career as a PA. I think you might lack confidence, HCE, etc. and try to make up for by putting others down. That’s very sad in my eyes and I feel for you.[/h] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hubbardtim48 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 [h=2]That’s not many details Oneal. I can show you many details if you would like, but what’s the point? You apparently don't like PA students that have prior HCE or you are this way to everyone. Don't be mad at me because I have a good HCE background and will do very well with those skills as a PA. Why humility? hu·mil·i·ty / [hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Noun: the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc. Origin:1275–1325; Middle English humilite < Latin humilitās. See humble, -ty2 Seems like you have some arrogance... or something to prove...? I don’t see anything wrong with thinking my past HCE is great as is relevant to a career as a PA. I think you might lack confidence, HCE, etc. and try to make up for by putting others down. That’s very sad in my eyes and I feel for you.[/h] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 BTW, I've asked about 18 physicians I know that have MD/PhD combined degrees which one was harder.......I only had one say that they were about equal. NONE said the MD was harder. 17 of them laughed, some a little, some hysterically, and said that there was no comparison. Some said the PhD was only a little harder, some said it was a joke to compare the two...and one said "Are you f*cking kidding me?"......based on that, the PhD is much harder than an MD. You need to look at the population as well however. If these MDs liked research and wanted to dedicate their lives to it, they would have obtained a PhD and avoided the clinical world all together. Many probably took that route because it allowed them to publish articles and make them more competitive for certain residencies. I've done about 1.5 years or research in the past and it was the most tedious, mundane, and at times annoying thing I've done. It simply was not enjoyable. If I were to compare my time in the lab to PA school, I'd probably say PA school was easier just because it was enjoyable... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 BTW, I've asked about 18 physicians I know that have MD/PhD combined degrees which one was harder.......I only had one say that they were about equal. NONE said the MD was harder. 17 of them laughed, some a little, some hysterically, and said that there was no comparison. Some said the PhD was only a little harder, some said it was a joke to compare the two...and one said "Are you f*cking kidding me?"......based on that, the PhD is much harder than an MD. You need to look at the population as well however. If these MDs liked research and wanted to dedicate their lives to it, they would have obtained a PhD and avoided the clinical world all together. Many probably took that route because it allowed them to publish articles and make them more competitive for certain residencies. I've done about 1.5 years or research in the past and it was the most tedious, mundane, and at times annoying thing I've done. It simply was not enjoyable. If I were to compare my time in the lab to PA school, I'd probably say PA school was easier just because it was enjoyable... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 That’s not many details Oneal. I can show you many details if you would like, but what’s the point? You apparently don't like PA students that have prior HCE or you are this way to everyone. Don't be mad at me because I have a good HCE background and will do very well with those skills as a PA. Why humility? hu·mil·i·ty / [hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Noun: the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc. Origin:1275–1325; Middle English humilite < Latin humilitās. See humble, -ty2 Seems like you have some arrogance... or something to prove...? I don’t see anything wrong with thinking my past HCE is great as is relevant to a career as a PA. I think you might lack confidence, HCE, etc. and try to make up for by putting others down. That’s very sad in my eyes and I feel for you. When you are in the real world and get pimped on the 99.99% of medicine that doesn't involve vents and cannot come up with the answer, please tell the MD you are working with all about your past HCE and how it will make you a great PA. Report back with the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 That’s not many details Oneal. I can show you many details if you would like, but what’s the point? You apparently don't like PA students that have prior HCE or you are this way to everyone. Don't be mad at me because I have a good HCE background and will do very well with those skills as a PA. Why humility? hu·mil·i·ty / [hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Noun: the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc. Origin:1275–1325; Middle English humilite < Latin humilitās. See humble, -ty2 Seems like you have some arrogance... or something to prove...? I don’t see anything wrong with thinking my past HCE is great as is relevant to a career as a PA. I think you might lack confidence, HCE, etc. and try to make up for by putting others down. That’s very sad in my eyes and I feel for you. When you are in the real world and get pimped on the 99.99% of medicine that doesn't involve vents and cannot come up with the answer, please tell the MD you are working with all about your past HCE and how it will make you a great PA. Report back with the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You need to look at the population as well however. If these MDs liked research and wanted to dedicate their lives to it, they would have obtained a PhD and avoided the clinical world all together. Many probably took that route because it allowed them to publish articles and make them more competitive for certain residencies. I've done about 1.5 years or research in the past and it was the most tedious, mundane, and at times annoying thing I've done. It simply was not enjoyable. If I were to compare my time in the lab to PA school, I'd probably say PA school was easier just because it was enjoyable... . True, but I am at the opposite end now.... Truly, I thought last night when I was working clinically, that I would give 100,000 dollars to throw my stethoscope away and NEVER, EVER touch another patient again. I've even thought over the last 6 months about going back to carpentry....(used to be a framer and then finish carpenter)....A LOT. I'd rather be in a research lab. I'm a minutiae, detail person, and I simply get no enjoyment from seeing patients anymore. Part of which is burnout. I am completely fried and I know it. So, I go through the motions, but with no emotion. Decathexis at it's purest. Don't get me wrong, I am still empathetic for some patients. Critically ill or injured patients, sure. But the fast track stuff......not at all. It sucks the soul out of a person. PhD (or DHSc...same number of research credits, but an applied research focus) vs MD is a difficult comparison, but let's face it.....clinical education is unbelievably easy.... It's rote memorization. As long as you have a good memory (I tend to remember almost everything I read, almost photographic, but not quite) any clinical education process is easy. PRACTICE is hard. Cause they don't present like the textbooks say, but the education is a breeze. I worked full time in PA school the whole way through and flied through with good grades the whole time. Research education is different. It requires abstract thinking. There is some memorization, IE; why you would use a Breslow Day versus a Mann Whitney statistical measure, but the actual research is much more tedious and difficult..... That's my 0.02 cents at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You need to look at the population as well however. If these MDs liked research and wanted to dedicate their lives to it, they would have obtained a PhD and avoided the clinical world all together. Many probably took that route because it allowed them to publish articles and make them more competitive for certain residencies. I've done about 1.5 years or research in the past and it was the most tedious, mundane, and at times annoying thing I've done. It simply was not enjoyable. If I were to compare my time in the lab to PA school, I'd probably say PA school was easier just because it was enjoyable... . True, but I am at the opposite end now.... Truly, I thought last night when I was working clinically, that I would give 100,000 dollars to throw my stethoscope away and NEVER, EVER touch another patient again. I've even thought over the last 6 months about going back to carpentry....(used to be a framer and then finish carpenter)....A LOT. I'd rather be in a research lab. I'm a minutiae, detail person, and I simply get no enjoyment from seeing patients anymore. Part of which is burnout. I am completely fried and I know it. So, I go through the motions, but with no emotion. Decathexis at it's purest. Don't get me wrong, I am still empathetic for some patients. Critically ill or injured patients, sure. But the fast track stuff......not at all. It sucks the soul out of a person. PhD (or DHSc...same number of research credits, but an applied research focus) vs MD is a difficult comparison, but let's face it.....clinical education is unbelievably easy.... It's rote memorization. As long as you have a good memory (I tend to remember almost everything I read, almost photographic, but not quite) any clinical education process is easy. PRACTICE is hard. Cause they don't present like the textbooks say, but the education is a breeze. I worked full time in PA school the whole way through and flied through with good grades the whole time. Research education is different. It requires abstract thinking. There is some memorization, IE; why you would use a Breslow Day versus a Mann Whitney statistical measure, but the actual research is much more tedious and difficult..... That's my 0.02 cents at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 True, but I am at the opposite end now.... Truly, I thought last night when I was working clinically, that I would give 100,000 dollars to throw my stethoscope away and NEVER, EVER touch another patient again. I've even thought over the last 6 months about going back to carpentry....(used to be a framer and then finish carpenter)....A LOT. I'd rather be in a research lab. I'm a minutiae, detail person, and I simply get no enjoyment from seeing patients anymore. Part of which is burnout. I am completely fried and I know it. So, I go through the motions, but with no emotion. Decathexis at it's purest. Don't get me wrong, I am still empathetic for some patients. Critically ill or injured patients, sure. But the fast track stuff......not at all. It sucks the soul out of a person. PhD (or DHSc...same number of research credits, but an applied research focus) vs MD is a difficult comparison, but let's face it.....clinical education is unbelievably easy.... It's rote memorization. As long as you have a good memory (I tend to remember almost everything I read, almost photographic, but not quite) any clinical education process is easy. PRACTICE is hard. Cause they don't present like the textbooks say, but the education is a breeze. I worked full time in PA school the whole way through and flied through with good grades the whole time. Research education is different. It requires abstract thinking. There is some memorization, IE; why you would use a Breslow Day versus a Mann Whitney statistical measure, but the actual research is much more tedious and difficult..... That's my 0.02 cents at least. You could go into ortho and become a carpenter while throwing away your stethoscope... just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.