- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Defeat the Nurse Practitioner scope of practice expansion - Louisiana SB 187
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:27 pm to Shakita Bonita
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:27 pm to Shakita Bonita
quote:
How about this: studies show there is no difference in outcomes when care is provided by an anesthesiologist or CRNA.
Well, you're wrong here again.
quote:
Conclusion
As none of the data were of sufficiently high quality and the studies presented inconsistent findings, we concluded that it was not possible to say whether there were any differences in care between medically qualified anaesthetists and nurse anaesthetists from the available evidence.
Cochrane review
1
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:28 pm to magicman534
quote:
After earning a BSN and working 6 years in the ICU I began CRNA school. The first 9 months were didactic then I began clinicals which consisted of 4 days a week every week for 24 months straight while the fifth day of the week was a classroom day.
Cool, thanks. So here's an actual CRNA confirming the training isn't comparable.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:29 pm to Shakita Bonita
From your paper -
And did you mean to link a study based on chart review?
quote:
We did find that case-mix complexity was different for the two types of providers. Anesthesia base units for procedures in which anesthesiologists practiced solo were a full point higher than for procedures in which certified registered nurse anesthetists worked alone.
And did you mean to link a study based on chart review?
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:32 pm to Parallax
Neato you found one study that said that. How about you find one that says mds provide better care than crnas. If nurses are just doctors' assistants then surely there should be a wealth of said studies, right?
Why don't you divulge what kind of doctor you are and your experience
Why don't you divulge what kind of doctor you are and your experience
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:34 pm to Shakita Bonita
That article isn't one study; it's a Cochrane review article. You aren't worth wasting my time if you don't know the significance of what I posted.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:38 pm to Shakita Bonita
quote:
Neato you found one study that said that. How about you find one that says mds provide better care than crnas. If nurses are just doctors' assistants then surely there should be a wealth of said studies, right?
Some studies can't undertaken.
No IRB would approve a study which placed complex patients into the CRNA arm.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:40 pm to Scruffy
quote:
This is not a good idea. Thankfully, I don't live in LA.
You do realize that the majority of states in the U.S. have already expanded scope of practice for LPs?
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:41 pm to Parallax
ill take that as a "I can't find said study."
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:44 pm to lsunurse
quote:
You do realize that the majority of states in the U.S. have already expanded scope of practice for LPs?
Expanded practice is not the same thing as independent practice.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:45 pm to lsunurse
quote:Oh, I know. I just wanted to see who I could get riled up.
You do realize that the majority of states in the U.S. have already expanded scope of practice for LPs?
The state I live in already allows some relative autonomy, to a degree.
At the same time, from what I have seen show up in the PER, I am personally not a fan of NP practitioners.
That isn't to say that I haven't seen my fair share of MDs send crap our way or treat maladies like blind, armless morons. I just see it more often with the NPs.
This post was edited on 5/7/16 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 5/7/16 at 6:59 pm to Shakita Bonita
Lobbying to manage disease processes without the required training and years of schooling is arrogance. Defending patient safety is itself part of the practice of medicine; has nothing to do with arrogance. A decade of schooling negates the charge of arrogance. The position was earned by taking difficult tests successfully and passing them to prove you clear the bar. Y'all just want to move the level of the bar thru the state Capitol
Posted on 5/7/16 at 7:02 pm to lsunurse
quote:
Look at all the dark blue states...those are states where NPs can already act independently.
Your chart proves the fact that expanded scope does not equal independent practice. Otherwise there would not be different shades of blue stratifying the differences.
For example going from restricted to reduced is expanded practice, not independent practice.
And 21 of 50 states allow independent practice (dark blue). That is not a majority.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 7:27 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
Neither is 99% of the interactions primary MDs have with patients. Which is fine, I don't need Gregory Housey for my strep throat or the spot on my back.
Bet you would be the first to sue if the 'strep throat' was tonsil cancer or the 'spot on your back' was melanoma and was missed by a mid level provider. You don't know enough to know when you need further evaluation or a higher level of care, that's what physicians are for.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 7:39 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
Neither is 99% of the interactions primary MDs have with patients. Which is fine, I don't need Gregory Housey for my strep throat or the spot on my back.
It really is frustrating that you are not understanding the argument
You can see a NP right this moment. They can decide on their own to treat you for strep throat.
If this bill passes, literally nothing about the experience from your perspective will change. There will not all of a sudden be a new population of NPs ready to see patients. They are already in the work force. There just won't be a doctor reviewing their work. Why would you not want that?
All we are saying is that there should be some sort of oversight from a more experienced professional. Or that they recieve additional training to prepare them for what they will encounter on their own.
This post was edited on 5/7/16 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 5/7/16 at 7:55 pm to Parallax
quote:
That article isn't one study; it's a Cochrane review article.
It bothers me how difficult it is to convey good vs bad research or strong vs weak findings to the masses. I used to think biostats was such a waste of time until I realized the inability of most to critique a study.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 8:07 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
It bothers me how difficult it is to convey good vs bad research or strong vs weak findings to the masses. I used to think biostats was such a waste of time until I realized the inability of most to critique a study
Exactly. If one does not even know what a Cochrane review is, one has no business treating patients.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 8:11 pm to LATigerdoc
quote:
Y'all just want to move the level of the bar thru the state Capitol
They'll win if they paid off the correct legislators. That's all it's about. Legislators don't care about facts and most are not capable of comprehending the difference.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 8:30 pm to Jake88
I'd like to commend everyone in this thread for how good they can read.
Bravo, All around. Good stuff here.
Reading is so good.
Bravo, All around. Good stuff here.
Reading is so good.
Posted on 5/7/16 at 8:54 pm to LATigerdoc
Good friend of mine and coworker just became a CRNA a year or two ago. Now she wants to pursue a doctorate in nursing practice to further her education so we were chatting a bit about that. I asked her how on earth she was going to juggle a full call schedule with work and with school. She told me it's online coursework. That's right... online coursework.
Page 26 of 127
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News