Nurse practitioner training has changed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP have no place prescribing medicine they should only be used to manage nurses

NPs may have been nurses once (or not with the straight to NP track) but they are a completely different profession from nursing and not even a part of in the nursing dept in a hospital. Their work is completely different than nursing and nursing management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My training was explicit that you had to see tens of thousands of normal to recognize abnormal reliably. Rashes don't often look textbook, and there is so much variation in presentation of the same diagnosis.

Without that large clinical database in your own mind, you can't reliably tell when to worry. Anemia that is not microcytic and hypochromic, or that doesn't respond as expected to treatment (as per PP)? Dig further. On the other hand, you don't order labs or antifungal treatment for pityriasis rosea when you can recognize it, even on the many varieties of skin type.

NPs can be fantastic. Old school NPs with many bedside years under the belt, or NPs who are well-trained in a narrow scope with good oversight (e.g., L&D) are more likely to be fantastic than others.

And you still need to see tens of thousands of normal before you can reliably pick out abnormal.

This is so important. You are going to have trouble hearing a murmur if you haven't heard a lot of hearts without one. Even something simple like distinguishing wheezing from rhonchi requires experience. I had a NP at a Minute Clinic listen to my lungs and tell me I had pneumonia and she gave me antibiotics. That seemed serious so I got in with my pcp the next day who sighed and said "You don't have pneumonia -- so those antibiotics aren't going to do anything and they shouldn't have been prescribed." The NP thought she heard rhonchi and panicked.

Medicine isn’t as simple as normal vs abnormal. Good practioners have to have an advanced understanding of pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. This cannot be done in a 2 yr PA crash course. NPs are slightly better because they get some of this in nursing school, then again in NP school, but still no where near as in depth and complete as the education a MD receives in 4 yrs medical school, plus residency, plus fellowship. Their depth of knowledge is not even comparable and goes way way beyond normal vs abnormal. They are dealing with people with complex issues involving multiple organ systems, on multiple meds, and each situation is slightly unique and individual. There needs to be critical thinking happening and that cannot happen if you don’t have the solid foundation of knowledge

Well, yes, but did you really expect a full medical school training in a single post? That's silly.

Normal vs abnormal is the heart of it. I'd challenge you to propose a medical problem that doesn't rest on that distinction at the core -- and medical school training plus residency plus (hopefully) working in a supportive learning environment for the first few years is what gets you there, minimally.

But it’s not helpful or cost effective to have an NP decide something is abnormal and then turf it to the MD because they aren’t really sure how to manage it. And this is what happens A LOT. They just make more work for the physician instead of less

I think you missed the point of the post. NPs coming through diploma mills are NOT the old school NPs with tones of experience, and they cannot reliably distinguish normal from abnormal. That's why the stories of poor care are mounting.

Furthermore, you cannot just declare medical schools must now have a 10% increase in admissions, or whatever. Those slots need to come with clinical placements with skilled practitioners. Many, many current NP students are not in a structured clinical training, if they even are getting any clinical time -- they are having to go out and find people to "supervise" them, with little to no oversight. If you start expecting medical students to do that, you'll see their trainign tank, too.

No, I didn’t miss the point. Per the OP, the fast tract for an NP, has students that already have a bachelor’s degree in another field able to get complete an NP program in 3 years. I’m not seeing how this is any worse than all the PA programs, which are only 2 years, in addition to various bachelor’s degrees. And don’t bring up “the clinical hours” covered to get into PA school. They are not required at all programs and are BS anyhow. They aren’t significant medical experience.

+1 don't get why there is debate over NPs but not PAs. I view them as the same and personally think we should just merge them to make it less confusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My training was explicit that you had to see tens of thousands of normal to recognize abnormal reliably. Rashes don't often look textbook, and there is so much variation in presentation of the same diagnosis.

Without that large clinical database in your own mind, you can't reliably tell when to worry. Anemia that is not microcytic and hypochromic, or that doesn't respond as expected to treatment (as per PP)? Dig further. On the other hand, you don't order labs or antifungal treatment for pityriasis rosea when you can recognize it, even on the many varieties of skin type.

NPs can be fantastic. Old school NPs with many bedside years under the belt, or NPs who are well-trained in a narrow scope with good oversight (e.g., L&D) are more likely to be fantastic than others.

And you still need to see tens of thousands of normal before you can reliably pick out abnormal.

This is so important. You are going to have trouble hearing a murmur if you haven't heard a lot of hearts without one. Even something simple like distinguishing wheezing from rhonchi requires experience. I had a NP at a Minute Clinic listen to my lungs and tell me I had pneumonia and she gave me antibiotics. That seemed serious so I got in with my pcp the next day who sighed and said "You don't have pneumonia -- so those antibiotics aren't going to do anything and they shouldn't have been prescribed." The NP thought she heard rhonchi and panicked.

Medicine isn’t as simple as normal vs abnormal. Good practioners have to have an advanced understanding of pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. This cannot be done in a 2 yr PA crash course. NPs are slightly better because they get some of this in nursing school, then again in NP school, but still no where near as in depth and complete as the education a MD receives in 4 yrs medical school, plus residency, plus fellowship. Their depth of knowledge is not even comparable and goes way way beyond normal vs abnormal. They are dealing with people with complex issues involving multiple organ systems, on multiple meds, and each situation is slightly unique and individual. There needs to be critical thinking happening and that cannot happen if you don’t have the solid foundation of knowledge

Well, yes, but did you really expect a full medical school training in a single post? That's silly.

Normal vs abnormal is the heart of it. I'd challenge you to propose a medical problem that doesn't rest on that distinction at the core -- and medical school training plus residency plus (hopefully) working in a supportive learning environment for the first few years is what gets you there, minimally.

But it’s not helpful or cost effective to have an NP decide something is abnormal and then turf it to the MD because they aren’t really sure how to manage it. And this is what happens A LOT. They just make more work for the physician instead of less

I think you missed the point of the post. NPs coming through diploma mills are NOT the old school NPs with tones of experience, and they cannot reliably distinguish normal from abnormal. That's why the stories of poor care are mounting.

Furthermore, you cannot just declare medical schools must now have a 10% increase in admissions, or whatever. Those slots need to come with clinical placements with skilled practitioners. Many, many current NP students are not in a structured clinical training, if they even are getting any clinical time -- they are having to go out and find people to "supervise" them, with little to no oversight. If you start expecting medical students to do that, you'll see their trainign tank, too.

No, I didn’t miss the point. Per the OP, the fast tract for an NP, has students that already have a bachelor’s degree in another field able to get complete an NP program in 3 years. I’m not seeing how this is any worse than all the PA programs, which are only 2 years, in addition to various bachelor’s degrees. And don’t bring up “the clinical hours” covered to get into PA school. They are not required at all programs and are BS anyhow. They aren’t significant medical experience.

What are you arguing against, exactly? That PAs and NPs don't have enough clinical training time to practice independently, at least without a long stretch of on the job training?

If that's what you think you are disagreeing with here, it's a figment of your imagination. You are yelling into a void, not arguing with the post that was quoted. You missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My training was explicit that you had to see tens of thousands of normal to recognize abnormal reliably. Rashes don't often look textbook, and there is so much variation in presentation of the same diagnosis.

Without that large clinical database in your own mind, you can't reliably tell when to worry. Anemia that is not microcytic and hypochromic, or that doesn't respond as expected to treatment (as per PP)? Dig further. On the other hand, you don't order labs or antifungal treatment for pityriasis rosea when you can recognize it, even on the many varieties of skin type.

NPs can be fantastic. Old school NPs with many bedside years under the belt, or NPs who are well-trained in a narrow scope with good oversight (e.g., L&D) are more likely to be fantastic than others.

And you still need to see tens of thousands of normal before you can reliably pick out abnormal.

This is so important. You are going to have trouble hearing a murmur if you haven't heard a lot of hearts without one. Even something simple like distinguishing wheezing from rhonchi requires experience. I had a NP at a Minute Clinic listen to my lungs and tell me I had pneumonia and she gave me antibiotics. That seemed serious so I got in with my pcp the next day who sighed and said "You don't have pneumonia -- so those antibiotics aren't going to do anything and they shouldn't have been prescribed." The NP thought she heard rhonchi and panicked.

Medicine isn’t as simple as normal vs abnormal. Good practioners have to have an advanced understanding of pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. This cannot be done in a 2 yr PA crash course. NPs are slightly better because they get some of this in nursing school, then again in NP school, but still no where near as in depth and complete as the education a MD receives in 4 yrs medical school, plus residency, plus fellowship. Their depth of knowledge is not even comparable and goes way way beyond normal vs abnormal. They are dealing with people with complex issues involving multiple organ systems, on multiple meds, and each situation is slightly unique and individual. There needs to be critical thinking happening and that cannot happen if you don’t have the solid foundation of knowledge

Well, yes, but did you really expect a full medical school training in a single post? That's silly.

Normal vs abnormal is the heart of it. I'd challenge you to propose a medical problem that doesn't rest on that distinction at the core -- and medical school training plus residency plus (hopefully) working in a supportive learning environment for the first few years is what gets you there, minimally.

But it’s not helpful or cost effective to have an NP decide something is abnormal and then turf it to the MD because they aren’t really sure how to manage it. And this is what happens A LOT. They just make more work for the physician instead of less

I think you missed the point of the post. NPs coming through diploma mills are NOT the old school NPs with tones of experience, and they cannot reliably distinguish normal from abnormal. That's why the stories of poor care are mounting.

Furthermore, you cannot just declare medical schools must now have a 10% increase in admissions, or whatever. Those slots need to come with clinical placements with skilled practitioners. Many, many current NP students are not in a structured clinical training, if they even are getting any clinical time -- they are having to go out and find people to "supervise" them, with little to no oversight. If you start expecting medical students to do that, you'll see their trainign tank, too.

No, I didn’t miss the point. Per the OP, the fast tract for an NP, has students that already have a bachelor’s degree in another field able to get complete an NP program in 3 years. I’m not seeing how this is any worse than all the PA programs, which are only 2 years, in addition to various bachelor’s degrees. And don’t bring up “the clinical hours” covered to get into PA school. They are not required at all programs and are BS anyhow. They aren’t significant medical experience.

What are you arguing against, exactly? That PAs and NPs don't have enough clinical training time to practice independently, at least without a long stretch of on the job training?

If that's what you think you are disagreeing with here, it's a figment of your imagination. You are yelling into a void, not arguing with the post that was quoted. You missed it.

Not that PP... Why is length of clinical training/experience questioned more for NPs but as much for PAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would somebody choose a low paying profession like nursing?
You will always be a low income earner and it will take years to pay back your student loans. Unless you have family money and get a free ride from your parents, that is the worst choice

There are other options

I am currently an NP with many years of bedside nursing starting in General Medicine, then ICU.

I cannot imagine a better job than being a nurse.

There is something sacred about a profession present at the first breath and the last breath, and through all sorts of challenges in the middle. A nurse is who will teach you how to take your medicines, clean you up when you need it, talk to your family members, cry with you or your family members and sit with someone who is dying. That is why someone goes into nursing. There is no profession like it.

For the entirety of my career, starting in the late 80s, nurses have always moved from Med-Surg to ICU to NP. Back then, there were nurses with minimal to no bedside experience becoming NPs. That was a problem then and continues to be a problem- but on a larger scale now- just due to sheer numbers.

As for the rest of the comments- I guess I am an “old school” NP, with a lot of experience. IMO- you have to be able to walk in a room and tell if someone is sick, immediately. That is a skill cultivated over time. Once you figure out they are sick, you need to figure out why. That takes a lot of time with patients and understanding of normals and abnormals, as mentioned.

As an NP, I know what I don’t know and am quick to ask for assistance and guidance. As a member of the team, caring for a population of patients, it is critical of PAs and NPs to have doctors available to consult. I am lucky, in my current position, to have that.

One thing I would like to mention, is that everyone needs guidance and training, including doctors. In the ICU, in my experience, the nurses are the ones that are going to be the first to notice a change in a critically ill patient. The nurse will tell the doctor. That nurse will anticipate what needs to be done and will be ready to implement what is ordered. It is not rare, that a nurse will guide the intern or resident in a management strategy. A nurse with several years of ICU experience has seen most of these scenarios, many many time. The new intern or resident? Not as much. It is a team, always. Do some doctors not respect nurses? Sure. There is nothing to do with that except continue to take the best care of patients that you can.

In my current role, I do so much that is similar to bedside nursing. Talking to patients about their life, their habits, their stressors, their medicines, their wellness. I am not a doctor, nor do I wish to be one. I truly believe I have the best job out there. I think NPs and PAs have a role to play in the care of patients, to the benefit of a population. I do agree that more time at the bedside is a benefit to all.

You basically described why NPs and PAs are dangerous these days. There is absolutely no requirement that they do any icu time. As residents, we do hours and hours of icu time EVEN if we are going into a field like primary care. So we may start off with little experience but by the end we have to meet some standards in this area. Not so much with the new generation of nurse practitioners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure how to add an image here, but you can see a graphic showing the differences in training here: https://www.patientsatrisk.com/differences

I am not sure what medical programs have 6000 clinical hours by year 4. Certainly not the med school affiliated with my university.

I don't think the issue is that being an MD makes you an excellent clinical and being an NP makes you a bad one. We all know terrible primary care doctors and amazing NPs. The issue is when any discipline allows shortcuts and doesn't require sufficient training and experience to do the job well. There should be a minimum hours of clinical work requirement to gain admission to an NP program.

I feel like no one understands how rigorous medical school training is…. Between residency where you work 80 hours a week for 3-7 years of training and medical school (2 years of rotations) MDs easy have 6000 hours. Now you can say - well there are still bad MDs - okay but if they are still bad in your eyes then why would you be okay with someone who has a fraction of that training (500 hours) which isn’t even standardized??

Residency is not the same as med school. They are saying by year 4 of a four year program, they have 6000 hours. The first two years are mostly class and the second two years are a mix of seminars and clinical rotations however they are not doing 6000 hours during those two years of rotations.

Family medicine is not a 3-7 year residency.

The point is that the trainings are usually between 3-7 years at least.

Family medicine is 3 years. Say they work on average 50 hours a week for 50 weeks that’s 7,500 hours and this is on average and doesn’t include medical school training!

[Anonymous]

^usually residents work 80 hours a week so this is underestimate..

[Anonymous]

Also another thing to point out is that ON average- NPs are not as smart/ good students as doctors. Look at how high GPAs have to be to go to medical school having to take the MCAT and orgo. Very few make it. Now think about your friends who are nurses… is it the same? Every single one of them can get into NP school and become a “doctor.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My training was explicit that you had to see tens of thousands of normal to recognize abnormal reliably. Rashes don't often look textbook, and there is so much variation in presentation of the same diagnosis.

Without that large clinical database in your own mind, you can't reliably tell when to worry. Anemia that is not microcytic and hypochromic, or that doesn't respond as expected to treatment (as per PP)? Dig further. On the other hand, you don't order labs or antifungal treatment for pityriasis rosea when you can recognize it, even on the many varieties of skin type.

NPs can be fantastic. Old school NPs with many bedside years under the belt, or NPs who are well-trained in a narrow scope with good oversight (e.g., L&D) are more likely to be fantastic than others.

And you still need to see tens of thousands of normal before you can reliably pick out abnormal.

This is so important. You are going to have trouble hearing a murmur if you haven't heard a lot of hearts without one. Even something simple like distinguishing wheezing from rhonchi requires experience. I had a NP at a Minute Clinic listen to my lungs and tell me I had pneumonia and she gave me antibiotics. That seemed serious so I got in with my pcp the next day who sighed and said "You don't have pneumonia -- so those antibiotics aren't going to do anything and they shouldn't have been prescribed." The NP thought she heard rhonchi and panicked.

Medicine isn’t as simple as normal vs abnormal. Good practioners have to have an advanced understanding of pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. This cannot be done in a 2 yr PA crash course. NPs are slightly better because they get some of this in nursing school, then again in NP school, but still no where near as in depth and complete as the education a MD receives in 4 yrs medical school, plus residency, plus fellowship. Their depth of knowledge is not even comparable and goes way way beyond normal vs abnormal. They are dealing with people with complex issues involving multiple organ systems, on multiple meds, and each situation is slightly unique and individual. There needs to be critical thinking happening and that cannot happen if you don’t have the solid foundation of knowledge

Well, yes, but did you really expect a full medical school training in a single post? That's silly.

Normal vs abnormal is the heart of it. I'd challenge you to propose a medical problem that doesn't rest on that distinction at the core -- and medical school training plus residency plus (hopefully) working in a supportive learning environment for the first few years is what gets you there, minimally.

But it’s not helpful or cost effective to have an NP decide something is abnormal and then turf it to the MD because they aren’t really sure how to manage it. And this is what happens A LOT. They just make more work for the physician instead of less

I think you missed the point of the post. NPs coming through diploma mills are NOT the old school NPs with tones of experience, and they cannot reliably distinguish normal from abnormal. That's why the stories of poor care are mounting.

Furthermore, you cannot just declare medical schools must now have a 10% increase in admissions, or whatever. Those slots need to come with clinical placements with skilled practitioners. Many, many current NP students are not in a structured clinical training, if they even are getting any clinical time -- they are having to go out and find people to "supervise" them, with little to no oversight. If you start expecting medical students to do that, you'll see their trainign tank, too.

No, I didn’t miss the point. Per the OP, the fast tract for an NP, has students that already have a bachelor’s degree in another field able to get complete an NP program in 3 years. I’m not seeing how this is any worse than all the PA programs, which are only 2 years, in addition to various bachelor’s degrees. And don’t bring up “the clinical hours” covered to get into PA school. They are not required at all programs and are BS anyhow. They aren’t significant medical experience.

What are you arguing against, exactly? That PAs and NPs don't have enough clinical training time to practice independently, at least without a long stretch of on the job training?

If that's what you think you are disagreeing with here, it's a figment of your imagination. You are yelling into a void, not arguing with the post that was quoted. You missed it.

You seem to only have a problem with NPs. You are angry that now there are now programs where training is 3 yrs with no prior RN experience. Whereas PA programs have always been no prior medical experience and their program is and has been always only 2 yrs. So what is your problem with NPs exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My training was explicit that you had to see tens of thousands of normal to recognize abnormal reliably. Rashes don't often look textbook, and there is so much variation in presentation of the same diagnosis.

Without that large clinical database in your own mind, you can't reliably tell when to worry. Anemia that is not microcytic and hypochromic, or that doesn't respond as expected to treatment (as per PP)? Dig further. On the other hand, you don't order labs or antifungal treatment for pityriasis rosea when you can recognize it, even on the many varieties of skin type.

NPs can be fantastic. Old school NPs with many bedside years under the belt, or NPs who are well-trained in a narrow scope with good oversight (e.g., L&D) are more likely to be fantastic than others.

And you still need to see tens of thousands of normal before you can reliably pick out abnormal.

This is so important. You are going to have trouble hearing a murmur if you haven't heard a lot of hearts without one. Even something simple like distinguishing wheezing from rhonchi requires experience. I had a NP at a Minute Clinic listen to my lungs and tell me I had pneumonia and she gave me antibiotics. That seemed serious so I got in with my pcp the next day who sighed and said "You don't have pneumonia -- so those antibiotics aren't going to do anything and they shouldn't have been prescribed." The NP thought she heard rhonchi and panicked.

Medicine isn’t as simple as normal vs abnormal. Good practioners have to have an advanced understanding of pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. This cannot be done in a 2 yr PA crash course. NPs are slightly better because they get some of this in nursing school, then again in NP school, but still no where near as in depth and complete as the education a MD receives in 4 yrs medical school, plus residency, plus fellowship. Their depth of knowledge is not even comparable and goes way way beyond normal vs abnormal. They are dealing with people with complex issues involving multiple organ systems, on multiple meds, and each situation is slightly unique and individual. There needs to be critical thinking happening and that cannot happen if you don’t have the solid foundation of knowledge

Well, yes, but did you really expect a full medical school training in a single post? That's silly.

Normal vs abnormal is the heart of it. I'd challenge you to propose a medical problem that doesn't rest on that distinction at the core -- and medical school training plus residency plus (hopefully) working in a supportive learning environment for the first few years is what gets you there, minimally.

But it’s not helpful or cost effective to have an NP decide something is abnormal and then turf it to the MD because they aren’t really sure how to manage it. And this is what happens A LOT. They just make more work for the physician instead of less

I think you missed the point of the post. NPs coming through diploma mills are NOT the old school NPs with tones of experience, and they cannot reliably distinguish normal from abnormal. That's why the stories of poor care are mounting.

Furthermore, you cannot just declare medical schools must now have a 10% increase in admissions, or whatever. Those slots need to come with clinical placements with skilled practitioners. Many, many current NP students are not in a structured clinical training, if they even are getting any clinical time -- they are having to go out and find people to "supervise" them, with little to no oversight. If you start expecting medical students to do that, you'll see their trainign tank, too.

No, I didn’t miss the point. Per the OP, the fast tract for an NP, has students that already have a bachelor’s degree in another field able to get complete an NP program in 3 years. I’m not seeing how this is any worse than all the PA programs, which are only 2 years, in addition to various bachelor’s degrees. And don’t bring up “the clinical hours” covered to get into PA school. They are not required at all programs and are BS anyhow. They aren’t significant medical experience.

What are you arguing against, exactly? That PAs and NPs don't have enough clinical training time to practice independently, at least without a long stretch of on the job training?

If that's what you think you are disagreeing with here, it's a figment of your imagination. You are yelling into a void, not arguing with the post that was quoted. You missed it.

Not that PP... Why is length of clinical training/experience questioned more for NPs but as much for PAs?

It’s because NPs are typically women..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure how to add an image here, but you can see a graphic showing the differences in training here: https://www.patientsatrisk.com/differences

I am not sure what medical programs have 6000 clinical hours by year 4. Certainly not the med school affiliated with my university.

I don't think the issue is that being an MD makes you an excellent clinical and being an NP makes you a bad one. We all know terrible primary care doctors and amazing NPs. The issue is when any discipline allows shortcuts and doesn't require sufficient training and experience to do the job well. There should be a minimum hours of clinical work requirement to gain admission to an NP program.

I feel like no one understands how rigorous medical school training is…. Between residency where you work 80 hours a week for 3-7 years of training and medical school (2 years of rotations) MDs easy have 6000 hours. Now you can say - well there are still bad MDs - okay but if they are still bad in your eyes then why would you be okay with someone who has a fraction of that training (500 hours) which isn’t even standardized??

Residency is not the same as med school. They are saying by year 4 of a four year program, they have 6000 hours. The first two years are mostly class and the second two years are a mix of seminars and clinical rotations however they are not doing 6000 hours during those two years of rotations.

Family medicine is not a 3-7 year residency.

The point is that the trainings are usually between 3-7 years at least.

Family medicine is 3 years. Say they work on average 50 hours a week for 50 weeks that’s 7,500 hours and this is on average and doesn’t include medical school training!

I agree but the post and stats link I was responding to was comparing nursing education to the four years of med school and was saying that by the end of four years of med school (before any residency hours) that a med student has 6000 hours and an NP has 500. Residency is a different ballgame than med school.

[Anonymous]

More recent articles

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029655423001008

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290977

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocn.16186

[Anonymous]

So the shortest NP programs are still a year longer than all PA programs. Yet OP wants to call out NPs specifically as being undertrained. I’m sure it is just a coincidence that NPs tend to be higher percentage female (86%). PAs are predominantly female too (66%), but double the men working as PAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the shortest NP programs are still a year longer than all PA programs. Yet OP wants to call out NPs specifically as being undertrained. I’m sure it is just a coincidence that NPs tend to be higher percentage female (86%). PAs are predominantly female too (66%), but double the men working as PAs.

Np but I personally think NPs should get more training than PAs because they can independently run their own practice and prescribe meds, as opposed to PAs who must always practice under the guidance of MDs. Isn’t that the biggest difference between these two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the shortest NP programs are still a year longer than all PA programs. Yet OP wants to call out NPs specifically as being undertrained. I’m sure it is just a coincidence that NPs tend to be higher percentage female (86%). PAs are predominantly female too (66%), but double the men working as PAs.

Doctors tend to like PAs more because their curriculum is more rigorous but ultimately the same issues apply to both