Please make a reply to this discussion, thanks Full Practice Authority (FPA) is

Please make a reply to this discussion, thanks
Full Practice Authority (FPA) is the ability of a healthcare professional to practice independently within the scope of their training and education. Nurse practitioners (NPs) have been advocating for FPA legislation to expand their practice authority, and collaboration with physician organizations has been one strategy to achieve this goal (Pearson, L. 2018).
Perusing Full Practice Authority (FPA) legislation’s precedent refers to the practice of examining previous decisions made by governing bodies, such as state legislatures or boards of nursing, regarding full practice authority for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (AACN, 2021). FPA is the ability of APRNs to provide healthcare services to patients to the full extent of their education and training, without requiring physician supervision or collaboration.
As FPA legislation is relatively new and constantly evolving, looking at past decisions and precedents can help inform current and future decision-making. This can include examining how other states have implemented FPA legislation and the impact it has had on healthcare access, quality, and patient outcomes. It can also include looking at legal challenges to FPA legislation and how they have been resolved (ANA, 2020).
By perusing FPA legislation’s precedent, policymakers, healthcare professionals, and advocates can gain a better understanding of the potential benefits and drawbacks of FPA and make informed decisions about how to implement and regulate FPA in their respective states or regions.
The push for full practice authority (FPA) for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) has been gaining momentum in recent years. FPA legislation aims to remove unnecessary barriers to practice for APRNs and allow them to practice to the full extent of their education and training. Collaboration with physician organizations can be a critical factor in the success of FPA legislation.
As we explore the advantages and disadvantages of collaborating with physician organizations when pursuing FPA legislation, we can find as an advantage that collaboration with physician organizations can lend credibility to the push for FPA legislation. APRNs are often viewed as a threat to physician autonomy, and physician organizations can help dispel this perception by publicly endorsing the legislation. This can be especially important when lobbying state legislatures, where physician organizations may have more clout than APRN organizations. Also, mention Broader Support because it can broaden the base of support for FPA legislation. APRN organizations may not have the resources or political capital to push for FPA legislation on their own. By working with physician organizations, APRNs can tap into their resources and reach a wider audience. Shared Goals is another important advantage since Physician organizations and APRN organizations share many of the same goals, including improving access to healthcare and increasing the quality of care. Collaboration can help both groups achieve these goals more effectively.
On the other hand, one potential disadvantage is the risk of dilution of the NP profession’s message. In a collaborative effort, it can be challenging to maintain a clear and distinct voice for the NP profession, which may be different from the perspectives of physicians. In such a situation, the NP profession’s unique perspectives may be lost in compromise, resulting in legislation that does not fully represent the needs of NPs.
Secondly, there is a risk of power imbalance in a collaborative effort. Physicians often hold more power and influence in healthcare, which can result in NPs feeling less able to negotiate for their needs. In some cases, physician organizations may use their influence to steer legislation towards their interests, rather than the needs of NPs. We can mention conflict of Interest; some physicians may view APRNs as competition and may be reluctant, in this scenario, to support legislation that would increase APRN autonomy. In addition, some physician organizations may have financial interests in limiting APRN practice, such as owning outpatient clinics that employ only physicians. Compromise is another disadvantage since Collaboration with physician organizations may require compromise on the part of APRNs. Physician organizations may be willing to support FPA legislation only if certain restrictions are put in place, such as requiring APRNs to work under the supervision of a physician. APRNs must weigh the benefits of collaboration against the potential compromises that may be required. The collaboration may also ultimately limit the autonomy of APRNs. Physician organizations may push for restrictions that limit APRN practice, such as limiting the types of procedures APRNs can perform or requiring physician supervision. APRNs must carefully consider the potential impact of collaboration on their autonomy. (Pearson, L. 2018).
In conclusion, collaborating with physician organizations can have both advantages and disadvantages when pursuing FPA legislation. While collaboration can lead to shared knowledge, political leverage, and improved relationships between professions, it can also dilute the NP profession (Buppert, 2019) that’s why we think that APRNs must carefully weigh the benefits of collaboration.