3 ms·

> NPs are not subject to oversight. Sorry, this is fundamentally incorrect. To the point I can only assume you’ve made up every other thing you’ve said. Though

by jmye 1y ago

> NPs are not subject to oversight. Sorry, this is fundamentally incorrect. To the point I can only assume you’ve made up every other thing you’ve said. Though I’m fascinated by a paramedic having opinions on someone else’s medical training. The world would be better if we had less strident opinions on things we know we don’t know anything about.

FireBeyond 1y ago
If you want to be pedantic, then everyone has oversight through medical licensing boards, including physicians. But if you mean "supervising physician"? Then let's see: * Alaska - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. * Arizona - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. * Colorado - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. We're six states in, and half have no requirement for an NP to have any supervision from a physician. Let's keep going though: Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho... zero supervision required. At this point I couldn't be bothered going through the list. This list, from the AAFP telling physicians about their responsibilities in supervising NPs state by state: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/managing-your-practice/team-based-care/legal-requirements.html https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/ma... So to put that back on you, explain my fundamental incorrectness. And again, if you're talking about DOH oversight, then that seems a little disingenuous, as even the Chief of Medicine at a Level 1 Trauma Center practices under that insight. I'm very well aware of the limitations of my scope of practice. That's why I operate under online and offline protocols. But hey, maybe I should have done another year or two of school so I could have a "full scope of practice without any need for a supervising physician". Not sure the ad hominem has any relevance.

by jmye 1y ago

FireBeyond 1y ago

If you want to be pedantic, then everyone has oversight through medical licensing boards, including physicians. But if you mean "supervising physician"? Then let's see: * Alaska - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. * Arizona - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. * Colorado - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician. We're six states in, and half have no requirement for an NP to have any supervision from a physician. Let's keep going though: Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho... zero supervision required. At this point I couldn't be bothered going through the list. This list, from the AAFP telling physicians about their responsibilities in supervising NPs state by state: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/managing-your-practice/team-based-care/legal-requirements.html https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/ma... So to put that back on you, explain my fundamental incorrectness. And again, if you're talking about DOH oversight, then that seems a little disingenuous, as even the Chief of Medicine at a Level 1 Trauma Center practices under that insight. I'm very well aware of the limitations of my scope of practice. That's why I operate under online and offline protocols. But hey, maybe I should have done another year or two of school so I could have a "full scope of practice without any need for a supervising physician". Not sure the ad hominem has any relevance.