Re: Does independent practice make you better than supervised practice? Archived Message
Posted by graham on January 5, 2008, 4:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Does independent practice make you better than supervised practice?"
All right, I found ASA's document pertaining to regional anesthesia here ASA did not say that they AA's are incompetent. All it says is that it is better to have regional anesthesia performed by an anesthesia doctor rather than the nonphysician anesthetists (both CRNA's under the ACT and AA's). Of course, this statement can be interpreted in various ways. You interpreted this as distrust from the anesthesia doctors, while I am more inclined to think of this as regulation. (We can argue on and on, but it would probably just boil down to language arguments.) ASA's wording is not that sweet, so I wouldn't be surprised if somebody reacts to this in a negative way. This is another example, stating that anesthetists are not trained to make medical judgment. My point is if you're going to say that AA's are not trusted because they are not allowed to perform regional anesthesia, then I think it's also fair to say that CRNA's under the ACT model are not trusted either. Another way of comparing is: Are CRNAs allowed to do regional anesthesia? Some are and some are not. Are AA's allowed to do regional anesthesia? Some are and some are not. SRNAs are trained to deliver regional anesthesia, not because they are more trusted than AA's, but because they OUGHT to be trained in regional anesthesia in the event that they decide to go solo later on. If the AA profession is permitted to practice independently, then of course, AA's would be trained to deliver regional anesthesia as well.
|
|