he
question for decades: Do differences in the education
and practice of anesthesiologist assistants (AA)
and nurse anesthetists (NAs) indicate the superiority
of one profession over the other in either ability
or capability? AAs and NAs are both longstanding
members of the anesthesia care team (ACT). ASA and
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) share the position that AAs and NAs have identical
clinical capabilities and responsibilities. Nearly
four decades of experience have proven the safety
of the ACT with either an NA or AA as the nonphysician
anesthetist. However, certain differences do exist
between AAs and NAs. Since some of these differences
are being mischaracterized in claims of superiority
of one over the other, objective investigation and
documentation was called for and was assigned to
the Committee on the Anesthesia Care Team (CACT).
This article summarizes the findings.
After thoroughly analyzing prerequisites for admission,
curricula, graduation and certification requirements,
and clinical practice and overall quality, the CACT
drafted the recently approved “ASA Statement
Comparing Anesthesiologist Assistant and Nurse Anesthetist
Education and Practice” (the complete statement
can be found in the “Members Only” section
of the ASA Web site). The committee was greatly
aided in its mission by the coincidental publication
of an impartial study comparing the education and
practice of AAs and NAs commissioned by the Kentucky
Legislature. The Legislative Research Commission
published its 59-page detailed report on February
2007 (see
www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2008/02-8/AA_Study_Report337.pdf).
Of note, several other states (recently Florida
and North Carolina) have reached the same conclusion.
Three differences between AAs and NAs can be summarized
as follows:
1. Prerequisites to training:
NA schools require an RN degree and one year of
critical care work experience. AA schools require
an undergraduate degree emphasizing the requirements
for medical school admission. ASA agrees with
the impartial findings of the Kentucky Legislature
that the requirement for clinical experience may
constitute a temporary aid to those beginning
their NA or AA education, but it makes no difference
to the final outcome of that training.
2. Performance of regional anesthesia
and invasive catheters: More NA education
programs provide instruction in the technical
aspects of regional anesthesia. A higher percentage
of AA programs provide instruction in the placement
of invasive monitors. There is no evidence to
suggest that the innate abilities of either student
type impact their suitability for these anesthesia
practices. The decision by some AA programs to
limit the teaching of regional techniques was
influenced by the opinion of some anesthesiologists
that neither AAs nor NAs should perform these
invasive procedures. That limitation is voluntary,
consistent with ASA policy and was implemented
to enhance patient safety.
3. Supervision and independent practice:
AAs must be supervised by an anesthesiologist,
and NAs may be supervised by any physician. Political
victories rather than changes in education have
allowed NAs in some states to practice without
the CMS requirement for physician supervision.
Requiring that anesthesiologists supervise AAs
in no way constitutes a mark of inferiority. To
the contrary, and as concluded by the Kentucky
study, AA work is directed only by anesthesiologists
because AAs want it that way. They agree that
the safest ACT is one led by an anesthesiologist,
so it is their desire to practice in a manner
that supports what they agree is the highest quality
and safety available.
History has everything to do with the differences
above. The AA profession was founded in the early
1970s by anesthesiologists striving to design an
improved educational program for anesthesia physician
extenders that would also include a direct path
to medical school if desired. Focused on that goal,
those pioneers in education recognized the value
added by strong premedical backgrounds. By requiring
prerequisites for admission to medical school in
order to qualify for admission to AA schools, AAs
may go from AA practice directly into medical school.
Disadvantaged in this regard, NAs who wish to advance
their ability and knowledge in anesthesia by becoming
anesthesiologists have to first go back to the undergraduate
level to complete a premedical curriculum. Thus
by history, tradition, philosophy of education and
desire, the AA is trained to work within the ACT.
The quality and scope of their education has nothing
to do with this decision.
In distinction, the NA discipline developed much
earlier, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, in response
to surgeons’ requests for more anesthesia
providers. As now, anesthesiologists alone could
not accommodate all surgical demands. Necessity
was truly the mother of invention for the evolution
of NA practice — we needed more anesthesia
providers. As early as 1916, NAs began fighting
legal battles claiming their right to provide anesthesia
supervised only by surgeons. NA organizations have
never formally supported or advocated for the idea
that NA care is safer under the direction of an
anesthesiologist or even supervision of a surgeon.
Their legal right to practice without the supervision
of an anesthesiologist is the result of their history,
tradition, philosophy of education and tremendous
political effort.
In summary, our analysis of prerequisites for admission,
curricula, graduation and certification requirements,
clinical practice, and overall quality and ability
of both AAs and NAs supports the findings of the
comprehensive, unbiased study of the Kentucky Legislature
and CMS policies recognizing the two professions
as being equivalent. After a year of practice, the
relative quality and skill of individual AAs or
NAs likely has more to do with personal talents
and abilities than the educational route taken.
This observation is supported by the testimonies
of many anesthesiologists who have gained valuable
insights working within the ACT for decades with
both NAs and AAs who find no significant differences
between the two groups of professionals in their
daily clinical practices.
ASA’s conclusion: Differences do exist
between AAs and NAs in regard to the prerequisites,
curriculum, instruction in regional anesthesia and
invasive monitoring, and requirements for supervision
in practice. However, these differences are not
based on superiority of education or ability, but
are rather a product of differences in historical
development and the philosophies and motivations
of those that practice within each profession.
Bibliography:
Steinhaus, et al. Analysis of manpower in anesthesiology.
Anesthesiology. 1970; 33(3):350-356.
Groudine SB. Anesthesiologist
assistants: Being a (care) team player.
ASA Newsl. 2001; 65(3):16-17,29.
Gravenstein JS, Steinhaus JE. The
origin of the anesthesiologist assistant.
ASA Newsl. 2003: 67(3):5-6.
The Web site of the American Association of Anesthesiologist
Assistants. www.anesthetist.org.
The Web site of the American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists. www.aana.com.
FAQs about AAs. ASA Website. www.asahq.org/career/aa.htm.
| |
|
Jeffrey
S. Plagenhoef, M.D., is President, Anesthesia
Consultants Medical Group, Southeast Alabama
Medical Center, Dothan, Alabama. He is the ASA
Director for Alabama. |
|
|