Jump to content

ksmith10

Members
  • Content count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About ksmith10

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. No, I have just actually been reading the e-mails that have been sent out by both organizations, and the statements made on both websites since the beginning.
  2. Well considering I "pointed out the obvious" myself - multiple times - in my posts on this thread, it's not as if it required any research of my past posts to reveal this.
  3. And the PI and self-assessment CME was completely scrapped yesterday, according to the email from NCCPA. If you've already done it or choose to, it's worth double the allotted CME credits. And those complaints about PANRE were, I thought, the entire reason behind the move to change it.
  4. But that's the kind of misinformation being spouted off by AAPA and used to justify their petulant behavior-- which, I agree with ColoradoIMCardsPA, reflects poorly on the profession. There is no proposal to take a board exam every two years. There is simply a proposal to have some sort of take-home activity that would be completed over the course of several months within the 2 year certification period, with the goal of maintaining general medical knowledge. The NCCPA has stated that it would NOT be similar to Pathway II - in other words, would not be designed to require looking things up and seeking out resources to answer the questions. Instead, they would be similar to PANCE questions that are relatively straightforward, but with the ability to look up the answer if necessary. Failing would only result in having to complete remedial CME in "target areas" where you are weak, and would be part of the required CME for the next cycle--not additional hours. If people are concerned about a push to require specializing and the loss of lateral mobility, it seems like this should be something you support. But people have been complaining quite a lot about the PANRE and its difficulty, lack of relevance to their area of practice, etc. The NCCPA appears to be trying to address this. The different kinds of CME seem to be something they are willing to cede. Look, I genuinely understand the points being made here by those who are further along in their careers and no longer see the utility in any of this. I understand why you all would just view these things as barriers that put us at a disadvantage compared to NPs. But for those of us who are new to the profession and don't yet have the experience, network, or expertise that you all do, the process by which we become credentialed and maintain certification holds more weight. None of these proposed changes will change state laws, and many of us will still be practicing in states where it is significantly less cumbersome and more desirable for practices to hire NPs. I believe one of the few things we have on our side, regardless of how inconsequential some may believe it to be, is a familiar, standardized and rigorous certification process that reflects the time-consuming effort required to remain up-to-date in our profession. But that's what the NCCPA has been trying to do....
  5. I'm surprised to see so many on here agreeing with the AAPA on this. What was so bad about the potential changes being discussed? The NCCPA is only talking about ideas at this point, and is open to change. Unlike the AAPA, at least they surveyed the opinions of PAs. The changes being considered wouldn't be implemented for 5-7 years. The CME requirements would change, too, as NCCPA has acknowledged that this is the big issue for a lot of people who are undecided about the proposed model and unhappy with the current one. They have also acknowledged that the PI stuff hasn't gone as expected and they intended for more options to be available by now. I think it's telling that the AAPA hasn't even so much as conducted a poll to see how many people agree with the actions they've taken since this all started. They seem to simply be using this as an opportunity to "overthrow" the NCCPA and get rid of recertification altogether; to me, the idea of having multiple certifying bodies and less cohesion across the board is NP territory. The administrators and physicians I've worked with have always seemed to have more respect for the process (and the credentials) because they can actually identify one in the first place and it's the same for everyone. I'm not sure anybody understands the situation with NPs -- some seem to take a board exam of sorts, some don't; there are various credentials with nobody being sure what they mean or how one obtains them (and maintains them). I recently saw a CV that had been submitted by an NP to my employer and it featured: "JANE DOE, NP-C" at the top. I thought to myself, "huh?" I'd never seen that one before. Regardless of how you feel about whether or not we should be retested at all, the proposed model appears to be less stressful and less time-consuming. Being able to take a recertification exam that is specific to your area of practice addresses the complaint we've heard from so many PAs for so many years. The AAPA could choose to be part of a nuanced debate over the specifics of the model being proposed, but that's not what they've done at any point. It's been all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater from the beginning. I've allowed my AAPA membership to lapse since this began and have no intention of ever giving them another dollar of my money. They do not represent me.
  6. Canadian border patrol agents still get to use their guns?? Amazing. Proving once again that you guys really are the smarter of the North Americans. Of course, I wonder how long before White Obama puts a stop to that.
  7. I'm sure this will come across as offensive, but I have to be honest. I'm hardly a "straight-laced" individual by any means, but I work with an NP who has a tattoo on her wrist - always with a watch over it, but at least 1.5-2" exposed on either side of the band - and I know that personality/demeanor/other appearance factors are almost certainly coming into play here - but all I can think when I look at her is how trashy it always seems. I'm not sure if it would strike me this way if it were a different provider with a different demeanor and an otherwise polished image. If she didn't wear scrubs, as it sounds like you won't be, then maybe it would be different too. I'm on the fence about this. I know you didn't ask about the opinions of colleagues, but rather the potential impact as it relates to your patients, but just thought I'd throw it out there lol
  8. ksmith10

    ICD-10 quick reference apps

    "ICD10 Consult 2016 Free" by Evan Schoenberg. The only difference between this and the paid version ($4.99) is that it has ads, but they aren't that intrusive.
  9. Apparently you guys got a different e-mail than I did or my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but nothing about what I'm reading makes me believe the CAQ test is required... it seems like PANRE is simply changing to a take-home format, which I am certainly 100% in support of, and people who either wish to obtain or REtain a CAQ certification will have the option to do so by taking a traditionally proctored exam at a designated testing site. "Like today, all PAs who successfully complete the recertification process would be awarded the same generalist PA-C credential, and those earning a CAQ would have that additional, specialty-related credential."
  10. Sorry if this should be obvious -- but what does this acronym mean?
  11. ^ Did you include this article specifically to reference a point about atenolol, or just for my edification...? Because it doesn't even mention atenolol. It is very helpful, though, so thank you for posting. Everything I have read seems to conclude the same thing about all the older BBs, not just atenolol.. the questionable benefit on M&M rates in patients with HTN, their association with increased risk of new-onset DM, etc. Of course, I suppose that's probably why they were excluded from JNC 8.
  12. Because there's more red tape involved in hiring, credentialing, maintaining and supervising us..and often times more practice limitations or simply more nuances in the registration agreement (vs. that of a collaborative agreement between NP/MD) with which administration may be less familiar or less inclined to take on if there are plenty of NPs in the area. For instance, where I live, PAs can't apply for a DEA license until they've been at the practice for 12 months, which is a huge inconvenience for most SPs who routinely prescribe controlled substances and one of the many reasons why PA jobs in my area are scarce while newly graduated NPs have their pick of specialties and practice settings
  13. Thank you so much for the invaluable input.. and for helping to ease the daily anxiety I've experienced over this guy's potassium since making this post. Ha :/ I was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of an unfortunate (for him) incident earlier this week involving an animal bite, resulting in his RTC before leaving town. His BP was improved at 152/86, though obviously still too high, and so I took advantage of the opportunity to add a BB. I'd done an EKG the first time I saw him and it was NSR, borderline tachy. I chose atenolol because 1) it's on his pharmacy's $4 list and 2) it's renally excreted, and carvedilol and metoprolol both have liver-related contraindications, so I felt it was the safer choice. We seem to be building a pretty good rapport, as he was significantly more amenable to the idea of further testing later this year. I think he's realizing that I'm really just trying to help and appreciates my avoidance of the parent-scolding-a-child tone that previous providers took on with him, as I don't see much utility in belaboring the points made at our initial visit.. I'm clearly not the first person (in health care... or his family... or wherever) to make his drinking the central issue, and I know it's unlikely to change anything at this stage (besides potentially running him off completely.) I'm not admitting defeat or anything, I just feel like I'm better off choosing my battles right now. Thanks again to everyone. Really appreciate the help
×

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More