Jump to content

ProSpectre

Members
  • Content Count

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ProSpectre last won the day on October 28 2018

ProSpectre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

291 Excellent

1 Follower

About ProSpectre

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile

  • Profession
    Physician Assistant Student

Recent Profile Visitors

993 profile views
  1. Credit hours definitely seem subjective, we're in agreement there. However, the hours you listed for those programs are at the low end of the curve for PA programs. The programs in my state are all around 120 credits, and those in the bordering state range from 128-174. Across the country, the 120 range seems to be most common and is likely near the average for all programs. I have yet to see any DNP program that breaks 100, and most I've looked at seem to be in the 70-80 range (for direct BSN-DNP programs); master's level NP programs are often as little as 45 credits. Don't get me wrong -- I don't say all that to create a pissing contest between PAs & NPs, but rather to lend evidence to the idea that PAs (in most cases) already complete the credit hour requirements to be awarded a doctorate according to many regional accreditation organizations.
  2. Dave Mittman is the current president-elect, meaning he will begin his 1-year term as president later this year in July. Jonathan Sobel is the current AAPA President. Both appear to be pro-OTP and pro-title change, so I think we're in good hands for now. But it's still important for PAs to get involved wherever possible -- join the AAPA and state orgs, volunteer time to these organizations, donate to the AAPA PAC, and educate fellow PAs (as well as legislators, physicians, NPs, etc) about the changes that we need to keep moving our profession forward.
  3. We'll actually know the final results from the investigation in a little over a year, about 14 months from now. They're releasing the initial results this coming May, and the second phase results in May of 2020. Considering the length of time PAs have been debating this change, I think another 14 months to do it right is reasonable. But yea, I hope we can get the title change done soon as possible. It isn't the greatest issue facing the PA profession, but it's definitely an important step that will help facilitate the bigger changes like OTP, direct Medicare payment for PAs, etc.
  4. I'm going to remain optimistic. I would be thoroughly pissed if the consulting firm recommended against a title change, but I don't believe that's going to happen (maybe that's just the optimist in me). Hiring an independent organization was probably a smart move on the part of the AAPA though, for a couple of reasons. Assuming that a title change is recommended, it allows all those PAs that are in favor to show that an objective route was taken to get to this decision, which would hopefully eliminate some of the resistance among those in the profession who remain anti-title change. We are an evidence-based profession, after all, so having hard data should go a long way to convincing those against a title change (and those on the fence) that it's an important part of modernizing the profession. Considering that a title-change was voted down in the HOD as recently as 2012, having an independent firm make the recommendation may be just what we need to finally push it through. Furthermore, having data from an independent organization may be helpful in the actual implementation of a title change when legislation is brought before lawmakers, and it should also provide ammunition to fight back against the inevitable backlash from organized medicine. I definitely understand the cynicism from some of the older PAs here, but I really do think the current leadership of the AAPA are doing what they can to push the profession forward, both with OTP and with the title change.
  5. If you watch the video I posted in the recent title change thread, the consulting company outlines their timeline in pretty good detail. The preliminary results of their investigation will be presented at the HOD this May. So far, they have reviewed existing research/trends/publications/regulations, have identified stakeholder groups that are important in this discussion, and have developed a methodology to study how PAs are currently perceived. The results of their research will be used to outline a strategy "for how to improve or enhance the perceptions of the PA profession", and will include whether or not they recommend a title change. This is what will be presented in May 2019. If their research shows that a title change would "position the profession for greater impact and success", then they will develop potential titles for the profession, which would then need to be "validated in the marketplace". The results of this second phase would then be presented as a final report at the HOD in 2020. Obviously, I think many on this thread and in the profession as a whole are hoping that a title change will be recommended (I sure am). From this timeline though, it's pretty clear that nothing is going to be finalized this year.
  6. I posted the link above above, as I imagine a lot of people may have overlooked the email. The email I got was titled "Boosting PA Visibility in 2019" and it wasn't purely about the Title Change Survey; it also had information about other PA advancements like the ad campaign the AAPA and NCCPA are doing this year and legislative updates for 2019 (like the new bill to authorize direct pay to PAs from Medicare).
  7. This is pretty interesting actually, that video is the first I've heard directly from the firm that was hired to conduct the title change investigation. Here is a link for those who don't want to have to dig through their emails: https://www.aapa.org/title-change-investigation-resources/?utm_source=newscentraltopas&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tci Interestingly, you do NOT have to be an AAPA member to get the survey that the firm will be sending out in March about the title change. I encourage every PA on this forum that is interested in moving the profession forward to take a few moments to update your info, or to create a free account if you aren't a member. That way when the surveys are sent out next month, we can have as many voices heard as possible. Let's keep this momentum rolling!
  8. That sucks man. I understand their argument about the program being shorter and therefore the 4th year off counting as a 55K scholarship, but I still call bullshit. They are using that as a cop-out to not provide a service they provide every other student, and should provide you as well. There are about a dozen traditional med schools that have 3 year curriculums (the vast majority are designed to match primary care physicians as well), but to my knowledge none of them dump the task of finding rotations on the students in that tract. Also, why a school would provide so little time to study for the boards is beyond me. In my opinion, this all looks pretty poor for LECOM.
  9. Yes you should absolutely highlight that experience; I think it would go in the section for extracurricular experiences. In addition to all of the benefits that come directly from playing sports (learning teamwork, discipline, leadership, commitment, etc), it's also a time-suck from your studies that other students don't have. This means you can use it to show that you learned how to balance a large time-commitment on top of your academic schedule -- this can either help to highlight your good grades (being able to keep your grades high on top of playing sports), or in some cases may help explain a slightly lower GPA (since the practice/travel/game schedule takes substantial time away from studying). It won't make up for a poor GPA, but may give a little boost to your app if your grades are just average. Also, if playing team-sports really did factor in to your decision to be a PA, you can highlight how in your personal statement. I did this in mine, albeit with my time in the Army instead; I talked about how being part of a team and working in a team environment was important to me, and how I'd already built qualities that allowed me to work effectively on multidisciplinary teams while I was in the military. Working as part of a team is built into the PA profession, so using this approach allows you to show that you have these qualities without explicitly saying it, and also helps to answer the question of why you chose PA over other healthcare professions.
  10. I don't understand why PAs don't capitalize on these legislative movements by NPs. We aren't going to stop them from lobbying for greater autonomy for themselves, but our representative organizations can at least piggyback off of those efforts and work for inclusion in legislation like this, or work with lawmakers to sponsor bills that grant parity with legislation like this. I think OTP and the title change are important steps, but we shouldn't be afraid to use the successes of NPs to argue for legislative parity for PAs. We're hired for the same jobs in many cases, and it's easy to demonstrate that PAs education is general is more rigorous, more credits, and more clinical hours; we should use these facts to our advantage.
  11. I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, you will be spending two years and a lot of money there, so feeling like you're in a supportive environment that cares about their students is important. On the other hand, PA school is simply a means to an end, and a temporary one at that. Yes it helps to have supportive faculty, but PA school is largely an individual game rather than a team sport, and your success in school depends largely on you. I don't know how competitive of a student you are, but if you think you have a reasonable chance of being accepted to another program, then it may be worth it to hold off on this one. Considering this is your second cycle and your only acceptance so far, that's something you should be brutally honest with yourself about. It may be worth it to pay the deposit and give yourself more time to decide. Which school you go to isn't a small decision, but in the grand scheme of your career, it really isn't that important as long as you graduate and pass your boards.
  12. I'm a little surprised where this thread has ended up, and I must say the personal attacks are a bit disheartening. I believe pretty strongly in patient autonomy and the freedom of patients to make their own medical decisions, even if those decisions aren't what is recommended by their health-care provider or what is best for their health. However, when that decision-making may result in inadvertent harm to other patients or other members of society, I think it changes the issue. JMPA, you keep mentioning "Immunology 101" -- I'll do you one better, and include a quote from the text used in my upper-level immunology course (which is also the same text used by my university's medical school to teach immunology). The text is Janeway's Immunobiology, 8th Ed. This quote comes from Chapter 16: Manipulation of the Immune Response (specifically section 16-21 on page 700): "A successful vaccine must possess several features in addition to its ability to provoke a protective immune response (Fig 16.23). First, it must be safe. Vaccines must be given to a huge number of people, relatively few of whom are likely to die of, or sometimes even catch, the disease that the vaccine is designed to prevent. This means that even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable. Second, the vaccine must be able to produce protective immunity in a very high proportion of the people to whom it is given. Third, particularly in poorer countries where it is impractical to give regular 'booster' vaccinations to dispersed rural populations, a successful vaccine must generate long-lived immunological memory. This means that the vaccine must prime both B and T lymphocytes. Fourth, vaccines must be very cheap if they are to be administered to large populations. Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective measures in health care, but this benefit is eroded as the cost per dose rises. Another benefit of an effective vaccination program is the 'herd immunity' that it confers on the general population. By lowering the number of susceptible members of the population, vaccination decreases the natural reservoir of infected individuals in that population and so reduces the probability of transmission of infection. Thus, even unvaccinated members will be protected because their individual chance of encountering the pathogen is decreased. However, the herd immunity effect is only seen at relatively high levels of vaccination within a population; for mumps it is estimated to be around 80%, and below this level sporadic epidemics can occur. This is illustrated by a marked increase in mumps in the United Kingdom in 2004-2005 in young adults as a result of the variable use in the mid-1990s of a measles/rubella vaccine, rather than the combined MMR, which was in short supply at that time." I apologize for the length of this post, but I figured I'd provide the entire passage since a good overview seemed important, rather than cherry-picking a single sentence.
  13. This probably isn't exactly what you're looking for, but Radiology Masterclass (https://www.radiologymasterclass.co.uk/) would be a great adjunct to the UVA tutorials. It's a UK website, but there are solid tutorials, practice films with various pathologies, and some quizzes too. They also have courses you can pay for, but the free content is pretty solid for self-study.
  14. I understand why NPs have progressed so far in the healthcare field. What I don't understand is why PAs aren't using the success NPs have achieved to our advantage. Obviously we have limitations they don't (namely, that we're regulated by the medical board and they aren't), but it still seems that we could slowly chip away at some of the useless legislative red-tape that is holding PAs back if we simply focused our lobbying efforts on gaining parity with NPs by highlighting our better (or more standardized) training. Functionally, NPs and PAs do the same things in many settings, and yet we are restricted in areas where they aren't -- this seems like a relatively easy case for lobbyists to make to legislators. A good start would be to focus on the VA, which is the largest single employer of PAs and yet has granted full-practice to NPs while PAs are still required to work under a supervising physician.
  15. The specific degree name doesn't matter at all as long as the program confers a master's degree and is accredited by ARC-PA. Any residencies/fellowships out there will only care that you graduated from an accredited program and could sit for (and pass) the PANCE. I wish PAEA would just standardize the PA degree with a single name (like Emory & Mercer's MMSc, Master's of Medical Science), but that may not ever happen.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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