I recently came across this article on Twitter and wrote my reply as soon as I read it. But as I was preparing to post this, I did a little more background research on the article. Let's start with the source- the website is called "MidlevelWTF". The tagline is- "Exposing midlevel incompetence in the fight to ensure patient safety and preserve physician-led, physician-supervised medicine." The author's user name/ Twitter handle is MidlevelWTF; motto: "an actual doctor, with an actual MD." In light of this, the tone of the article makes much more sense. I'm disgusted to discover that a physician has dedicated their time/ energy to specifically target and defame APPs.

Reply

     I disagree with a policy that formally designates a nurse practitioner to supervise any resident who runs a code. It's not appropriate to assign anyone else the authority to unilaterally overrule the decisions of the code leader. Codes need 1 leader- this is typically not the most junior person in the room, but someone in the middle or upper level of their training- a midlevel or senior resident.

     This doesn’t mean leaders can’t get recommendations from others.  The more senior personnel in the room are welcome to provide advice- if there is egregious incompetence, which I would guess is the exception far more than the rule, someone, such as an attending or fellow or senior resident, can take over the role as leader.

     Working with the premise that the leader is competent, correcting a mistaken dose, helping develop a differential and general troubleshooting are all in the patient's best interest. These are also integral to closed-loop communication, and shouldn't be considered undermining or met with resistance. Team members should be able to speak up freely without having to worry about being yelled at for correcting another provider who is potentially more senior.

     The problem with this policy lies in the disruption of the team dynamics- adding another layer of "leadership" by formally assigning someone to have authority over the team leader creates confusion. If there is a contradiction, does the team listen to the leader or the "assigned" supervisor, who could reasonably have less experience than the resident?

     I've gladly welcomed advice from those with more experience than me during a difficult situation, and I trust them to speak up if they see something amiss. I trust all the non-physicians who care for our patients in my absence, and I trust them to call me if there is any concern; I hope they will feel empowered to do this in a code situation as well.

So I support the author's general stance that the policy is inappropriate. However...I take great offense at this article. Implying that nurse practitioners (NPs) are minimally qualified and poorly educated is insulting and severely erroneous. Worst of all, the writer implied that a midlevel might decide to call it quits on a code “because they didn't feel like doing it anymore.” Absolutely inflammatory. Implying that any healthcare professional would be lazy or bored and just give up is preposterous.

     I have worked with many APPs (advanced practice providers), which includes NPs and PAs (physicians assistants) in the ER, on the inpatient wards, in the operating room, in the ICU, and in clinic. I have found them to be phenomenal teammates, motivated and eager to continually learn about how to best care for patients. Yes, some are less competent than others. But this is equally true of all healthcare professionals. I would gladly have a competent NP run a code if they were at the bedside at felt comfortable/ empowered to do so.

     While I would never designate a non-physician to oversee a resident running a code, I would similarly never expect a resident to take over the role of team leader from a competent NP or PA. As a fellow, during my time in the ICU, I would gladly let either an APP or a resident run the code, depending on availability and comfort level. I would be readily available and provide input when needed such as when the decision-making process extends past the algorithm of ACLS and into specific patient scenarios. In addition, if the patient needed an emergent/ urgent procedure, I was free to perform or assist while those procedures were being performed, as the NP/PA or resident continued to manage the overall code situation (meds, compressions, US to examine for cardiac activity, calling for MTP, etc).

     So I disagree with the policy, but I am deeply disappointed in the way the author chose to make petty accusations to undermine APPs and justify their disagreement with the policy. It's disappointing that a professional would stoop low enough to attack the character of our teammates.