In Bleiler v Bodnar, 65 NY2d 65, 72, 479 N.E.2d 230, 489 N.Y.S.2d 885 [1985], a doctor and a nurse who assisted plaintiff in the emergency room, "were both charged with having failed to take a proper medical history - a crucial element of diagnosis and medical treatment." Id. The Court of Appeals held that the doctor's "alleged failure to elicit all information pertinent to treatment could unquestionably constitute medical malpractice," and that "the conclusion is no different with respect to the emergency room nurse, functioning in that role as an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to a patient." Id. The Court of Appeals articulated the general test to determine whether a challenged conduct constitutes malpractice pursuant to CPLR 214-a. In Bleiler v. Bodnar, the Court was called upon to decide whether the alleged failure of an emergency room nurse to obtain a patient's medical history could be deemed "medical malpractice" within the meaning of the statute. Answering that question in the affirmative, the court held that the limitations period established by CPLR 214-a may apply to acts or omissions committed by individuals and entities other than physicians where those acts or omissions either constitute medical treatment or bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment. (65 N.Y.2d at 72). The essential question to be answered in determining the applicable statute of limitations is whether the conduct at issue constitutes an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to the patient. Id. For a cause of action to survive the shorter statute of limitations and continue to be viable under the longer statute of limitations applicable to negligence, the gravamen of the complaint should not be negligence in furnishing medical treatment or conduct which bears a substantial relation to the rendition of medical treat-ment by a licensed physician, but rather must point to a different duty. (Bleiler v. Bodnar, 65 N.Y.2d 65.)