With the restrictions of being a PA, have you thought you should have gone NP?

[sartort]

Could having a lot of PAs becoming RNs and then NPs be used against the PA profession by making it seem that NPs are superior both in education and practice? I worry this could lead to phasing out the PA profession. I'm okay with an umbrella term to help unite the professions and open doors, as well as help patients understand the role, but I would prefer to not have to become an NP to practice and would still like to keep a PA title to help identify the education model. Maybe it could be something like Advanced Practitioner, PA and Advanced Practitioner, NP. I think any bridge program from PA to NP could be used against us if people wanted to use it that way and from reading through the threads it sounds like that might be the case. Rather than individuals just becoming NPs in order to gain privilege in their own practice it would be nice to see them working together to gain those privileges for all PAs, which seems to be happening slowly across the nation.

[EMEDPA]

the only reason to become an np is for the legislative advantages(solo practice without physician partner, support of nursing unions, cheaper malpractice underwritten by nursing groups, etc,etc).

there is no clinical reason to do so. PA clinicals are already better. an np to pa bridge would require almost a whole pa program to be on the same level clinically(most of first year and > 1000 hrs of clinicals to reach hr minimums when added to the 500-800 an np program provides).

[lang]

This thread makes me think of DOs vs MDs. I know their training is much more similar to each other than ours and NP training, but was it always? Weren't they constantly bickering back and fourth about who's better a long time ago? I think it would be great to turn our PA/NP differences into "they are only minimally different". They can still train using their nursing approach as long as the hours, clinicals, etc were altered to match ours so no one can really say we're better trained. Also we could fight to have the exact same rights as NPs bc we are "very minimally different."

I know a problem lies in that DOs/MDs both take the same boards under the BOM and in our situation, we can't do that. Not sure if we could develop one... Or if we would want to. This all just makes me really want to study the history behind how the MDs and DOs worked it out years ago.

[EMEDPA]

MD's take usmle

DO's take comlex.

different exams.

DO's may take usmle if they want to go to an allopathic residency.

MDs may not take comlex or attend an osteopathic residency.

[CoastalPalm]

This thread makes me think of DOs vs MDs. I know their training is much more similar to each other than ours and NP training, but was it always? Weren't they constantly bickering back and fourth about who's better a long time ago? I think it would be great to turn our PA/NP differences into "they are only minimally different". They can still train using their nursing approach as long as the hours, clinicals, etc were altered to match ours so no one can really say we're better trained. Also we could fight to have the exact same rights as NPs bc we are "very minimally different."

I know a problem lies in that DOs/MDs both take the same boards under the BOM and in our situation, we can't do that. Not sure if we could develop one... Or if we would want to. This all just makes me really want to study the history behind how the MDs and DOs worked it out years ago.

 

If I understand correctly MDs and DOs don't take the same boards, and are under different BOMs. The MDs are under the Board of Medicine, the DOs are under the Board of Osteopathic Medicine. The MDs take the USMLE (under the National Board of Medical Examiners), the DOs take the COMLEX (under the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners). Now, if a DO wants to attend an MD residency program, they would have to take the USMLE in addition to the COMLEX, but they are not required to do that, and have their own residency programs (though obviously the 'big name" programs are MD affiliated and ask for the USMLE).

[CoastalPalm]

MD's take usmle

DO's take comlex.

different exams.

DO's may take usmle if they want to go to an allopathic residency.

MDs may not take comlex or attend an osteopathic residency.

 

HA! Nice.

[GREEN]

The fact that a group of PAs is even discussing becoming NPs proves the AAPA has already failed us...the truth hurts.

[CoastalPalm]

the only reason to become an np is for the legislative advantages(solo practice without physician partner, support of nursing unions, cheaper malpractice underwritten by nursing groups, etc,etc).

there is no clinical reason to do so. PA clinicals are already better. an np to pa bridge would require almost a whole pa program to be on the same level clinically(most of first year and > 1000 hrs of clinicals to reach hr minimums when added to the 500-800 an np program provides).

 

EMEDPA, how do you see the goals of PAFT, as well as its Statement on the Highest Level of PA Practice in relation to the legislative advantages of the NPs? It seems that if chart review/co-signature/etc can be reduced/eliminated in situations that don't warrant it (i.e. PAs in practice for a specific amount of time, post-residency, etc), as well as the autonomy of the PA in relation to NPs, then there would be no need to even ponder a PA to NP bridge for those legislative advantages, right? Except I'm assuming that PAs would never have the "independent practice" opportunities that NPs have, right? It seems that many are swayed to NP because of the possibility of practicing to the "top of their license" and being fully autonomous/independent clinicians who at the same time know their limits and know when to refer to those with greater knowledge and experience/specialists.

[lang]

Okay! Sorry :) I was wrong about that. I really thought there was on overarching BOM that contained the two. I never studied up on docs as in-depth as I did PAs. But, isn't that even better!!! They have become virtually indistinguishable and they do it without converging somewhere. I guess what I'm really saying is instead of us talking about ways to bridge and whatnot, lets talk about how some who came before us and now get to play the same game from equal footing. I mean, do DOs have conversations like "man, the MDs are really gaining freedoms I would like to have"? Ps, I really don't know the answer. If they do then I guess I've made a silly point :)

[EMEDPA]

EMEDPA, how do you see the goals of PAFT, as well as its Statement on the Highest Level of PA Practice in relation to the legislative advantages of the NPs? It seems that if chart review/co-signature/etc can be reduced/eliminated in situations that don't warrant it (i.e. PAs in practice for a specific amount of time, post-residency, etc), as well as the autonomy of the PA in relation to NPs, then there would be no need to even ponder a PA to NP bridge for those legislative advantages, right? Except I'm assuming that PAs would never have the "independent practice" opportunities that NPs have, right? It seems that many are swayed to NP because of the possibility of practicing to the "top of their license" and being fully autonomous/independent clinicians who at the same time know their limits and know when to refer to those with greater knowledge and experience/specialists.

I don't see PAs being fully independent anytime soon. what I would like to see is PAs judged on their individual merits not with arbitrary rules like "PAs can't do xyz procedure" just because they are PAs. I would like to see PAs work out some kind of distant alternate supervisor service so no pa would ever have to close up shop if there sp died/moved/retired/quit/etc.

we have discussed this before here. a pa could pay for "SP insurance" or something that essentially guarantees them the min state required oversight in the event of a primary sp not being able to fill in that role. only in very rare instances would this need to be used so the price could be pretty low, maybe 200 dollars/PA/year. a pa who desired to use this as their primary means of having an sp would of course pay more, maybe 500 dollars/month or so. this would also allow a pa to get a license in any state before having a job there, making job searches much easier. "interim legislative sp coverage" would allow the new grad or moving pa to get a license before actually working then once they have a job they would revert to the backup coverage. better yet, states could allow PAs to get licensed before having jobs...but that would be evern more sensible....we need some level of recognition that we exist on our own without physicians, even if only for purposes of getting licensed and finding a job. (all of the above is my rambling, not official PAFT goals or ideas).

[Jolie717]

It is the only program, and it seems to be moving away. There use to be many more.

 

 

It appears that program is going the way of the Dodo Bird and will be no more after the graduating class of 2014. Too bad - you had me excited for a minute! (as a pre-PA student)

[Guest JMPA]

the only reason to become an np is for the legislative advantages(solo practice without physician partner, support of nursing unions, cheaper malpractice underwritten by nursing groups, etc,etc).

there is no clinical reason to do so. PA clinicals are already better. an np to pa bridge would require almost a whole pa program to be on the same level clinically(most of first year and > 1000 hrs of clinicals to reach hr minimums when added to the 500-800 an np program provides).

Absolutely agree with you. If our AAPA and other legislative bodies have failed us than i see no reason why the NP profession would not be proud to adopt us in and strengthen their profession. A simple bridge would open the door for so many deserving Physician assistants. The time is now to send a strong message to aapa, represent our needs or we will change our professional title.

[NAP1986]

Nurse Practitioners often feel similar ways about being too limited by their own profession's self-regulations, and many wish they could get the fluff out of the curriculum to devote more time to medical-model type training.

 

See this post: http://allnurses.com/nurse-practitioners-np/sick-certs-just-832464.html

[Doc Savage]

I found this article interesting... I feel NP's will have equal treatment with primary care docs relatively soon.

Probably the next 5 years or less as Obamacare starts kicking in ...

 

http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/nurse-practitioners-physicians-disagree-on-primary-care-roles/article/293540/?DCMP=EMC-CA_UPDATE&cpn=eliqcard&spMailingID=6156538&spUserID=MzEwODAwOTM5NjQS1&spJobID=73688515&spReportId=NzM2ODg1MTUS1

[NoClinic4Me]

It would be cool if PAs with valid RN licenses could challenge the FNP boards. At the very least it could give them more leverage politically.

 

Me. I'd actually do this, just to say I could:D

 

Bottom line, I don't wish I went the easy route nor an inferior level of training. I am comfortable with the role and would do it all over again.

 

Pat