"Restricted Scope of APRN Practice" is a great example of a paper on care. The health sector is a fundamental component of any given society. Individuals, societies, economies, and governments always work towards enhancing the provision of health care to the people. In the process, quality, affordability, and accessibility of health care are critical factors to account for (Milstead, 2013). The fact that the provision of health care is an expensive undertaking cannot be refuted. While APRN practices provide an adequate ground for addressing quality, affordability, and accessibility concerns in health care, physicians are often opposed to such a move.
Amid this, the integration of APRNs in medical staff has been observed across the United States. In her article, RNs should practice to the full extent of education and experience: new Pennsylvania law supports advanced nursing practice, Betsy Snook (2008) argues that APRNs should be allowed to practice primary care. This came shortly after Pennsylvania implemented health care reforms that saw the role of nurse practitioners extended to the management of primary care. The ultimate goal in health care is to meet patient needs, by having nurses, physicians, and all other parties/stakeholders collaborate and work together towards this common goal.
In this respect, if the education and experience of APRNs can handle primary care, they should be allowed to practice it. High costs of health care have locked many patients from accessing quality and affordable health care (Milstead, 2013). This has made it necessary to undertake immense and critical health care reforms in order to address all underlying issues in the health sector. While there are many alternatives that can possibly solve many of the issues raised in the health sector, striking a balance between the opinions, perspectives, and interests raised by stakeholders has been a stumbling block to that process.
The extension of APRNs’ mandate has been opposed more than it has been supported across the United States, especially by physicians. In order to make medical services more effective and efficient, practitioners in health care should not work towards restricting the scope of their counterparts. Rather, they should join forces and make health care provision more affordable, accessible, and improve the quality of care.
According to AMA, retail clinics should be investigated at both state and federal levels (Snook, 2008). AMA has from time to time questioned the competence of retail clinics across the United States, an aspect that has angered nurse practitioners all over the country. In her response to this issue, Betsy Snook argues that the move by AMA is a waste of resources and public funds that could essentially be directed to government health care programs. The restricted scope of APRNs in managing and practicing primary care has resulted in inadequate exploitation of their full potential.
The education, experience, knowledge, and skill levels of APRNs are highly competitive relative to other practitioners in the health care sector (Snook, 2008). The management and practice of primary care by APRNs will essentially ease the pressure on hospitals and physicians. By the same token, patient welfare is bound to improve in relation to accessibility, affordability, and quality of care in Pennsylvania and beyond. APRNs can collaboratively work with physicians and all other health care providers for the benefit of the health care consumer.
Milstead, J.A. (2013). Health policy and politics (4th ed.). Burlington, Ma: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Snook, B. M. (2008). “RNs should practice to full extent of education and experience: new Pennsylvania law supports advanced nursing practice”. Maryland Nurse (MD NURSE), Feb-Apr; 9(2): 7.