Fatal distraction: Compensation talk---keeping your guard up.

 

            There’s one distraction whether experienced or inexperienced every PA job hunter wrestles with during their job interviews--compensation. Especially, if the amount offered surpasses their anticipated expectation for that job.  For many, metaphorically speaking is as if they were cruising at moderate speed and momentarily taking their eyes off the road just to be jolted by the impact of going off the road and landing in a ditch. Conversely, a “generous” compensation offer (i.e. salary) can have a very similar effect. Therefore, this unexpected derailment can sneak into your mind potentially obfuscating the big final picture during or after the interview.

            During that vulnerable period of the interview process, you must be at your best if not your strongest and/or sharpest. Why? Because it’s very easy to briefly disengage and put yourself at risk of becoming distracted, thus easily forgetting to recall all other important key factors that would weigh in helping you make that final informed decision comfortably.

            Conversely, do not allow yourself to be pressured by the interviewer; resist the urge of accepting the job right on the spot. This could have been a gambit used against you. Some interviewers like to play this card-- a momentary tactic to disarm you and avoid those well-thought-out questions you prepared before the interview.

            So, the best protection against this kind of fatal distraction is to avoid capitulating to blind impulsivity. You must respond with a very thoughtful constrained remark such as: “As enticing, & generous your offer is, I still would like to have 2-3 days to discuss this with”… your significant other and/or family, or your attorney.

             But more importantly, by keeping your guard up and remaining grounded when it counted the most, then the less cheated you would feel if the job didn’t work out for you in the end.   

            In conclusion, never accept or negotiate an employment offer on the spot. No matter how good it sounds to your ears or if it appears on paper. It is best to take time and sort things out after you've taken time to thoroughly consider the pros and cons. Remember, right there and then thank the employer and restate your desire to work for the company or organization. But just as important, if not more so, that you need time to think it over, and even discuss it with your spouse( if applicable) so they can understand you will base your final decision on both monetary and non-monetary issues related to the employment offer.  And don't forget to ascertain the allotted response time given to you.

 

 

A point of Contention in PA Education

        In this commentary, I will discuss my opinion about a recent trend noticed in the PA academic sphere. Many, if not many PA programs are failing our prospective colleagues in their professional preparation to become competent, skillful clinicians. This is based & derived from my own past observations from my own past precepting/teaching experiences and occasional lecture presentations, even to practicing PAs. And w/o much fanfare, I will get to the issue at hand in my next paragraph as shown below. 

My main point of contention is that they believe that the current PA curriculum being taught has no room or need for Clinical Risk Management exposure at this stage of training. As some of their experts–as read recently in a blog– would have you believe. They hold the view that this would better serve as a post-PA school training pursuit in the form of CME through their various venues of teaching/training. 

I would disagree, and here is why: This author believes that these rationalizations are flawed given the push for adding other “nonessential” PA courses into their curriculum; namely Nutritional training and others for our students. This is one of the most common ones discussed in some PA forums. 

            This is the dilemma: they fail to see their pedagogical myopia when it comes to our students and the community at large, by dismissing teaching them how to mitigate and shield their careers from legal landmines encountered in the everyday practice of medicine. For that same reason, I am strongly in disagreement favoring a more tangible “investment in a quality education/course”. One that would have better “return of investments” sort of speak. 

I would further add, this is not only necessary but vital to develop confident clinicians in providing care in a very litigious industry, I believe that identifying and using a set of curricular Risk Management standards in this regard at the national level for PA students is more than a good idea. Not only would it mean they would feel empowered to tackle legal minefields based on sound proved risk management practices & methodologies. But moreover, it would be a step in the right direction towards ensuring sound training for all students, regardless of the particular PA program enrolled. 

I realize and wholeheartedly admit Education is a dynamic field and granted almost every change in the realm of education has a direct impact on us as educators, students, and practitioners at large. Therefore, it is important and incumbent that we be ready to accept this new paradigm and be prepared to learn and use effective new methods and techniques that would not only enhance our PA curricula but would benefit our students in their career journeys. 

With this in mind, we must always entertain relevant educational issues and seek out educational offerings that add and not detract from their careers, rather by elevating their professional development with substantive subject matter exposure topics.

The "Awoke" AMA

We are amid a global social reset. Many countries including the US are trying to become more trans-culturally transparent by attempting to discard institutionalized biases & racism from all fronts of the socioeconomic spectrum. Also, along the same vein, corporations and profit and nonprofit organizations have begun to effectively address workplace inequalities while the healthcare industry is also trying to eradicate past healthcare inequities. 

     So given that premise, we’re all embarking on crucial conversations facilitating change with elevated empathy, sensitivity, and awareness of past poor systemic inequalities perpetuated by our so-called/racist systemic myopic biases infringing on minority &/or marginalized groups. 

Multicultural health disparities & access to care have been long overdue. Removing these stereotyped attitudinal beliefs and offensive cultural behaviors will require a huge concerted effort from all healthcare industry stakeholders. Putting into practice this fresh perspective will require the AMA to go beyond lip service to the patient community & us. 

    If they want to be viewed by industry and society as a vested leading humble organization as alluded to in their newly revised organizational diversity embracing organizational policies, then they must openly recognize two fundamental needs of the PA profession/community; namely: 

1. Recognize OTP (Optimum Team Practice ) 

 2. Recognize our new professional designation–Physician Associate 

Anything short of valuing interprofessional differences or seeking ways to grow and embrace their understanding & support of the PA profession would be hypocritical. Thus, failing to collaborate in building an industry culture where nonphysician providers are not empowered to bring their whole, authentic selves to the table, nor increase access to healthcare to vulnerable patient communities is disrespectful and downright non-inclusive. And worse yet, a flagrant discriminatory practice in the eyes of many non-woke physicians/APPs.

For PAs & APPs diversity, equity & inclusivity have been more than ideas, they have been part of our professional DNA and calling when providing care to our patients for the past 5 decades. 

Will the AMA abide by its own modernized organizational policies? Perhaps…only time will tell if they are as passionate about rebuilding and maintaining a team that is representative of this new paradigm where intolerance of any form of discrimination is openly rejected & ultimately condemned.