Should the AAPA board fire Jennifer Dorn for the title change survey debacle?

[rev ronin]

See the other thread for details, but the level of poor execution in the long-awaited title change survey leads me to suspect either gross incompetence, exceptionally poor oversight of contracted survey methodology and content, or active work to undermine the will of the AAPA HOD through intentionally delivering an inferior survey not fit for purpose.
 

This isn't remotely designed to be a neutral poll. I'm mad and you should be too, regardless of where you stand on the title change issue itself: the survey is inexcusably bad. To quote Peter Berge from Huddle "Meanwhile, no inquiry into what potential titles PAs support, or oppose,  and why, while time and space was occupied by questions about details of nurse practitioner practice, artificial intelligence and the future of telehealth. "

Edited April 3, 2019 by rev ronin
punctuation correction

[dmdpac]

I've long believed that it is important to belong to one's professional organization.  It used to bother me that people would willingly not belong.

It used to bother me, that is, until now.  As a result of this survey I can see why people could, and would, have written off AAPA as an effective leader of our profession.  I have not given up on them yet.  I still think it's important to belong and to continue to advocate for ourselves.  However, I'm astounded at how poorly this project has been executed.  As such, new leadership may be in order.

Edited April 3, 2019 by dmdpac

[SoCal_PA]

Oh wow.  A clearly presented question with two answer choices? Who would have known this could be possible?

[sas5814]

I was disappointed in the survey as well. That said I have to wonder if there is some secret sauce we aren't seeing much as patients don't understand much of what we do and why we do it. I'm not defending...just pondering.

Also what would be the point of paying a 3rd party company to just ask everyone whether we should change titles and, if so, to what? That poll has been done a thousand times and could be done again on a national scale for next to nothing.

I hope there is more to this than meets the eye.

BTW Rev are they moderating you on the Huddle? been there. It's kind of a badge of honor.

 

[rev ronin]

1 minute ago, sas5814 said:

BTW Rev are they moderating you on the Huddle? been there. It's kind of a badge of honor.

They have not, but I know that Huddle is known for that, so I come here where we're free to disagree as principled adults. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they might not have, but as we all know, past performance is the best predictor of future behavior.

[Joelseff]

While I wasn't exactly upset to the point of demanding Dorn's head to roll, I did think the survey was a little asinine but as someone else pointed out, there may be a hidden gem in those questions. It almost *felt* like they were fishing for some supportive data to back up a title change. I did however notice the comparison to NPs but I wish there was a section asking us what title would be appropriate but I'm ASSuming that another survey will follow once they gather the data and IF it shows a support for a change.  The spam thing was quite stupid.  I am certain there is a way to keep it from looking like a phishing survey or something. I have a feeling the turnout for respondents would be rather low unless PAs or PA-S's are reading this forum or the huddle. 

 

I am going to hope for the best but I am not holding my breath just like the last time this came up in 2012. I am reticent. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Joelseff

[ventana]

I am neutral on it till they publish results.  Polls are hard to write to be neutral defensible and good science.  Sometimes they have to have seemingly stupid questions in there for some reason. 

 

I do do think they missed the boat to not have questions on what our title should be.  

 

I cant say much about it going to spam folder.  This is a local email server issue and out of their control I guess.  But they could have sent it from aapa domain and it might have been better received 

 

 

the proof will be in the report. 

[GreatChecko]

It feels like branding survey, not a title change survey. I’m hoping there will be a follow up of some sort.

Thinking positively, for the amount of money we are paying, we should be getting more than some information on what title we like best from the company. I’d happily take over a million dollars to put together a google survey and provide a spreadsheet with which one is more popular. For that money, we deserve a lot more.

I think what we are seeing is the beginning of a thorough dive into what a PA in 2019 is and how we should define our role into the future, including what our title should be and why we should change it. We have to remember, that should we move forward, we will have to convince many a politician and ultimately the general public that this is a good idea. We can argue the semantics all day long around here, but we will need a plan with some data and arguments to make it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by GreatChecko

[sas5814]

A lot of the questions were....odd but I think you are correct about branding. If I step back a bit those questions could be and probably are about perception.

Give the same questions to other groups. Compare and contrast. Data

[rev ronin]

3 hours ago, GreatChecko said:

I think what we are seeing is the beginning of a thorough dive into what a PA in 2019 is and how we should define our role into the future, including what our title should be and why we should change it.

That would indeed be nice, but I don't really see how you can get there from the questions that were asked in the survey.  Am I missing something?  I don't recall a question on how much time I spend assisting in procedures, for example, but that might not have been presented to me as I selected 'family medicine' as my current primary area of practice.

[GreatChecko]

48 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

That would indeed be nice, but I don't really see how you can get there from the questions that were asked in the survey.  Am I missing something?  I don't recall a question on how much time I spend assisting in procedures, for example, but that might not have been presented to me as I selected 'family medicine' as my current primary area of practice.

True. It wasn’t well designed in that regard.

[Guest Paula]

I vote yes.  AAPA needs someone at the top who truly understands PAs.  And supports us and is aggressive to the max in support.

There is history in my answer that I won't divulge but we need new leadership at the top. 

And BTW, this topic on the forum has already been texted to me (while I'm in the middle of across the state move) so it is amazing how fast it gets around.  

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Paula

[DrJazzyPAC]

I think she needs to be fired. But that was my opinion long before this survey came out. We need someone at the top that supports and understands the PAs of the future. There is much to be learned from the NP organizations. Perhaps we could recruit some of their leadership?  The public perception they have created for themselves far surpasses the reality of who they are and what they can do. And that perception is key to their success.  

[VeryOldPA]

I think her and the rest of the AAPA leadership’s silence on this issue speaks volumes. There are thousands of very pissed off PAs out there and not one bit of damage control has come forth 

[KpsPac]

5 hours ago, DrJazzyPAC said:

 There is much to be learned from the NP organizations. Perhaps we could recruit some of their leadership?  The public perception they have created for themselves far surpasses the reality of who they are and what they can do. And that perception is key to their success.  

 

I wholeheartedly agree we could learna thing or two from nursing. In fact, my fb feed is filled DAILY with NP state laws, going-ons, and bills that affect their (AND PA!!!) practice from the NP state org, while my state PA org has yet to releasw the results of our election from February.  

We probably couldn’t afford NP leadership. Their lobbying and support from their constituency far surpasses PAs. 

[KpsPac]

2 hours ago, VeryOldPA said:

I think her and the rest of the AAPA leadership’s silence on this issue speaks volumes. There are thousands of very pissed off PAs out there and not one bit of damage control has come forth 

They have started to explain the survey questions/background  on Huddle. 

[KpsPac]

Regarding the dismissal of Ms.Dorn.... firing may or may not be the answer, I personally feel PAs are out of touch with their own organization. Many still don’t know what OTP is, know leadership (state or national),  or much less understand how it all works. 

 I am willing to bet the average PA is not aware of any infractions caused by Dorn (or even know who she is) to justify support. Does anyone here know of other fiascos she has caused or created? 

Pragmatically speaking, AAPA would need to find someone quickly to replace her. I have no experience how that even works. Anyone know? 

[VeryOldPA]

21 minutes ago, KpsPac said:

They have started to explain the survey questions/background  on Huddle. 

There is much more to this than just the questions. Take a look at Peter  Betge’s posts on the Huddle. What has been posted on the Huddle by staff is in my opinion condescending. 

[ventana]

Can someone explain how to get on huddle?

 

i got my posts edited and deleted to many times and just left.  It is not a good board but I am  interested in comments 

[Guest Paula]

You have to be an AAPA member to be on the Huddle.  You can use your same log in as you do for AAPA site.   If you were on it before just log back in and read the 100 postings about the title change investigation. 

[TWR]

Her replacement should be a PA!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Someone with leadership skills and a passion for the profession.  A couple of names come to mind!!

[UGoLong]

I am a retired project manager (used to hold the PMP certification). Projects don't always go smoothly and require lots of course corrections. This one is no different. There are a set of stakeholders (mainly us) that feel at least "skeptical" regarding the outcome. As far as I can determine, that is due to the following factors:

1. An experienced surveying company should have figured out how not to end up in many of our spam files

2. Many of the survey questions seemed to miss the mark, at least based on our understanding of what it was trying to prove. It is also not clear who else -- besides PAs -- are being surveyed, but one would hope that other stakeholders in the process (non-PAs, like patients, physicians, or whomever) are also being involved.

3. There has been insufficient communications with at least a set of stakeholders (us again) regarding the approach and plan. The video was fine but certainly doesn't address the current member concerns.

Firing the AAPA leadership is, to me, not the right response at this time. The leadership needs to start communicating with us regarding our concerns. Stakeholders always have concerns and they need to be addressed by the project team and the project's sponsor (AAPA). The longer this doesn't happen, the more unhappy the stakeholders get and the louder the clamor for changes in the project's leadership.

The survey has been out for less than a month. I think that AAPA management would be wise to communicate soon, rather than wait for the convention. Fish -- and bad news -- doesn't keep well, and certainly not another 6 weeks.

[UGoLong]

Here's an explanation from the AAPA Huddle that at least some of us get everyday. It was posted Friday 4/5/19 and is a start at communicating with us. Given that a large portion of PAs don't get the Huddle, they might want to send their responses out to the survey mailing list (taking care that they don't end up in the spam folder):

1. Why didn't I receive the survey, and how can I get it now?

• The message may be in your spam/junk folder. Internet Service Providers and email companies establish spam filters to limit receipt of mass communications to their customers.  The sender does not control recipient filters, nor is the sender notified when an email is marked as spam. 
• Please check your spam or junk folder for an email from "Kantar/WPP on behalf of AAPA" or email address "WPPsurvey@survey.researchresults.com". The email's subject line is "Physician Assistant Title Investigation Survey". 
• If you are unable to locate your survey, please contact AAPA's Customer Care Team at 703-836-2272, Option 1 or email customercare@aapa.org.

2. How long will I have to complete the survey?

• The survey will be accessible until Tuesday, April 30,at 9 a.m. EDT
• Weekly reminders will be sent to those who have not yet responded.
• The survey may take up to 40 minutes to complete. You can stop and restart the survey at a later time/date without losing the information you have already entered. 

3. Why didn't the survey ask a question about what title PAs want?

• The Title Change Investigation is a two-phase process. We invite you to watch the video on the TCI webpage for more details, but it is briefly summarized below.
• This survey is part of phase one; it is a branding survey. It is intended to help our independent research firm, WPP, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the PA brand, guide the development of messaging and branding that will support a stronger brand, and ensure that the title of our profession will build upon and strengthen our identity. 
• If this process and other information requested in the HOD resolution indicates that a new name is warranted, then WPP will move to phase two. During that phase, specific names will be vetted by WPP and legal counsel, and PAs will have an opportunity to voice their opinions through a second survey.

4. Why are there so many questions that ask about NPs and physicians on the survey?

• One purpose of this survey is to help the independent branding and marketing firm understand the strengths and weaknesses of the PA brand within the broader healthcare landscape, particularly with regard to NPs and physicians.
• Understanding how the PA brand can be differentiated from the NP and physician brands is critical. It will help ensure that our title, messaging, and brand identity is as strong as possible. 

5. Why is the survey so long?  

• It is common for in-depth research, like this PA branding survey, to require 45 minutes to an hour to complete. However, based on feedback from PAs and PA students following the preliminary launch of the survey, the survey's programming logic was adjusted to reduce the overall time commitment required.  
• Considering the importance of this topic, the length and scope of the survey were balanced against the known preferences of PAs. And the survey was designed so that PAs do not have to spend 40 minutes in one sitting to complete it; you can stop anytime and return later, as long as you complete it within the allotted 4 weeks (until Tuesday, April 30 at 9 a.m. EDT).
• We recognize that the survey includes a number of open-ended questions, which may lengthen the time required by some to complete the survey. WPP believes it is critical to hear directly from PAs, in their own words, rather than limiting your input to pre-defined choices. 

6.  Who came up with survey questions and how did they decide what to ask?
   • WPP gathered information using the following methods to identify themes and inform their development of the survey:
     1. Focus groups with PAs, including the TCI Advisory Council;
     2. Focus groups with patients; and
     3. Qualitative one-on-one interviews with PAs (clinically practicing and educators), PA students, MDs, NPs, think tank members, representatives of state medical boards, government agencies, and professional societies.

 

------------------------------
Donna Nogay
American Academy of PAs
VP Marketing
AAPA Liaison to WPP
------------------------------

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by UGoLong

[rev ronin]

On 4/5/2019 at 4:34 AM, VeryOldPA said:

There is much more to this than just the questions. Take a look at Peter  Betge’s posts on the Huddle. What has been posted on the Huddle by staff is in my opinion condescending. 

Bergé's posts are on target and articulate.  Him posting his critiques have been the single factor that's kept me from posting more, not any staff censorship.

Not sure I'd call the staff responses adequate, but not sure I'd call them condescending either.

[TWR]

UGL,  the Huddle response to question #4 is sad.  The marketing company apparently was not prepared and did/does not know what we are or exactly what we want!!  Sad considering how much money they have been paid.