This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is an area of ongoing research, for a long time there was a bunch of non-inferiority type studies published by the nursing lobby which were apples to oranges comparison. Ex: NPs with simple cases and MDs with hard cases had similar outcomes.
Now that the NPs have made such a mess of things you have more research such as this: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/3-year-study-nps-ed-worse-outcomes-higher-costs#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20the%20physician,complexity%20of%20the%20patient's%20condition.
It's important to keep in mind that NPs get effectively no training. Even if you think medicine is grossly simple (which....sigh), you should have some training.
I think people really struggle to understand how big the gap is no matter how often it's pointed out. You wouldn't trust Juan the day laborer working construction with designing a skyscraper, but that's a reasonably apt comparison in training differences and amounts.
NPs don't save the healthcare economy because while they do get paid less they do more unnecessary testing, it's just a wealth transfer from MDs to hospitals. They also stress the system more with unnecessary consults and admissions which only makes the doctor shortage issues worse.
That AMA link gives such a laughably biased summary of the actual study, though. The paper itself suggests a far more nuanced picture than your metaphor about Juan the day laborer-- and that's a study led by an MD who presumably has his own professional axe to grind. (I'd be much more interested in seeing some adversarial MD-DNP research collaborations in this area.)
Notably,
- The study focused almost entirely on costs in an ED setting; on a skim, I can't find that it examined detailed health outcomes at all beyond 30-day mortality and "preventable hospitalization," the latter of which seems difficult to define in terms of patient welfare. They say NPs and MDs had no significant differences in 30-day patient mortality.
- The study did find that treatment by NPs cost the system more than treatment by MDs, owing to NPs calling for longer hospital stays and more tests. But the difference in costs diminished with more experienced NPs.
- The cost difference also diminished to a relatively trivial level for less complex cases, and the authors themselves suggest that this means NPs could be valuable substitutes for physicians in primary care.
- They found almost as much variability in productivity from clinician to clinician *within* professions as there was *across* professions. Money sentence from the abstract: "Importantly, even larger productivity variation
exists within each profession, leading to substantial overlap between the productivity distributions of the two professions; NPs perform better than physicians in 38 percent of random pairs."
I agree with you that NPs receive a disturbingly small amount of training before they're turned loose on patients. But I think the question we should be asking is what it suggests about doctors' care if MDs still realize such minor gains over DNPs.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link