The first option is to do nothing and let the current law stand. This is not beneficial to patients and consumers. The second option is to implement the law gradually to over a time-period agreeable to physicians. The will enable a compromise with physicians that enables the physicians to have some say in how the new law be instituted. Since physicians believe nurse practitioners are not adequately trained when first entering practice, physician involvement may help ease this fear (Westat. 2015). Perhaps more clinical hours are needed with physicians, so physicians feel they are teaching or grooming nurse practitioners. Of course, an end time should be agreed on, so nurse practitioners can teach others eventually. The key is to somehow get physicians on …show more content…
Understanding the pro’s and con’s can help move forward and correct issues that hinder change. Advantages The advantages for full practice authority is evident to consumers. Nurse practitioners attain the same or exceed patient outcomes when compared to physicians in patient satisfaction, glucose control, functional status, blood pressure control, lipid control, decreased mortality, decreased emergency room visit and hospital admission rates, and patient perception of health (Westat, 2015). Another advantage is there are often shorter wait times to see a nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners Disadvantages This policy change can have disadvantages. Nurse practitioners refer to more physicians than physicians do (Westat, 2015). This argument leads the physician groups to think that physicians should have the seen the patient initially and bypassed the referral. When referring, physicians receiving the referral stated that physicians provided better information about the patient condition (Westat, 2015). Comparison of alternatives and results of