Latest Likes For BigPappaCRNA

Latest Likes For BigPappaCRNA

BigPappaCRNA 597 Views

Joined Jan 13, '13. Posts: 22 (55% Liked) Likes: 29

Sorted By Last Like Received (Max 500)
  • 7:59 am

    They should not have huge class size. They should not be scrambling to find clinical sites for all their students at the last minute. Their attrition rate should be low. They should offer CRNA only sites through which to rotate. They should have hands opportunity for blocks and spinals and epidurals. There should be no need to ever worry about your numbers, any of your numbers. If the program constantly tells you how tough, hard, and rigorous they are, I would run away. If the program tells you to study for your interview, I would look elsewhere. If the current students aren't allowed to speak with prospective students freely and openly, I would look elsewhere. If the program is owned and ran by a Med group, I would look elsewhere. If they are not regionally accredited, I would look elsewhere. Of course there can be exceptions, but these should be at least some of the indicators of which prospective students to research. Carefully!!! Good luck.

  • May 2

    They should not have huge class size. They should not be scrambling to find clinical sites for all their students at the last minute. Their attrition rate should be low. They should offer CRNA only sites through which to rotate. They should have hands opportunity for blocks and spinals and epidurals. There should be no need to ever worry about your numbers, any of your numbers. If the program constantly tells you how tough, hard, and rigorous they are, I would run away. If the program tells you to study for your interview, I would look elsewhere. If the current students aren't allowed to speak with prospective students freely and openly, I would look elsewhere. If the program is owned and ran by a Med group, I would look elsewhere. If they are not regionally accredited, I would look elsewhere. Of course there can be exceptions, but these should be at least some of the indicators of which prospective students to research. Carefully!!! Good luck.

  • May 2

    They should not have huge class size. They should not be scrambling to find clinical sites for all their students at the last minute. Their attrition rate should be low. They should offer CRNA only sites through which to rotate. They should have hands opportunity for blocks and spinals and epidurals. There should be no need to ever worry about your numbers, any of your numbers. If the program constantly tells you how tough, hard, and rigorous they are, I would run away. If the program tells you to study for your interview, I would look elsewhere. If the current students aren't allowed to speak with prospective students freely and openly, I would look elsewhere. If the program is owned and ran by a Med group, I would look elsewhere. If they are not regionally accredited, I would look elsewhere. Of course there can be exceptions, but these should be at least some of the indicators of which prospective students to research. Carefully!!! Good luck.

  • May 1

    You do not have a very good shot to get into a strong program. Your grades are just middle of the pack, so you will need much more experience to be competitive, not to mention a stronger SRNA. One year is just not enough. You might get accepted to one of the puppy mills, but not a strong program, and you don't want that. Good Luck.

    P.S. Stay FAR away from Wolford until they get regionally accredited, not just accredited by the COA, but by a regionally accreditation body.

  • May 1

    I cannot urge you strongly enough to put in a few years at your current unit, 2-3, before applying. Less than one is simply not enough time. Period. You seemed to indicate that you have soaked up all the ICU has to offer, and I assure you that is just not the case. I have been a CRNA for a long time, and sat on admissions committees for two different programs. You are currently not a viable candidate, although you are on the right track, and doing it well. A very solid ICU background helps make a very solid SRNA. As far as Level I, it is vastly overrated, and not really considered particularly helpful. That is a long term myth. We just like experience. In fact smaller units offer far more opportunities for growth. What one gives up in acuity, one makes up for it with autonomy, critical thinking, and independence. Your current unit sounds just fine, just give it another two years and then apply. You will then be a stud. If you apply now, you WILL stand out, and not in a good way.

  • May 1

    I cannot urge you strongly enough to put in a few years at your current unit, 2-3, before applying. Less than one is simply not enough time. Period. You seemed to indicate that you have soaked up all the ICU has to offer, and I assure you that is just not the case. I have been a CRNA for a long time, and sat on admissions committees for two different programs. You are currently not a viable candidate, although you are on the right track, and doing it well. A very solid ICU background helps make a very solid SRNA. As far as Level I, it is vastly overrated, and not really considered particularly helpful. That is a long term myth. We just like experience. In fact smaller units offer far more opportunities for growth. What one gives up in acuity, one makes up for it with autonomy, critical thinking, and independence. Your current unit sounds just fine, just give it another two years and then apply. You will then be a stud. If you apply now, you WILL stand out, and not in a good way.

  • Apr 30

    I cannot urge you strongly enough to put in a few years at your current unit, 2-3, before applying. Less than one is simply not enough time. Period. You seemed to indicate that you have soaked up all the ICU has to offer, and I assure you that is just not the case. I have been a CRNA for a long time, and sat on admissions committees for two different programs. You are currently not a viable candidate, although you are on the right track, and doing it well. A very solid ICU background helps make a very solid SRNA. As far as Level I, it is vastly overrated, and not really considered particularly helpful. That is a long term myth. We just like experience. In fact smaller units offer far more opportunities for growth. What one gives up in acuity, one makes up for it with autonomy, critical thinking, and independence. Your current unit sounds just fine, just give it another two years and then apply. You will then be a stud. If you apply now, you WILL stand out, and not in a good way.

  • Apr 24

    Most ORs have masks with face shields. Those are my preference. It is big and protective. Most ORs also have disposable glasses that shield very well as well, as was mentioned above. I used to wear a pair of quality "Gargoyle" brand clear shooting glasses. The are expensive, but have perfect optics with no distortion and were developed for pistol target shooting. Plenty of "3M" safety glasses on the market, and it is now pretty easy to find them with built in bifocal readers for aging eyes.

  • Apr 24

    Most ORs have masks with face shields. Those are my preference. It is big and protective. Most ORs also have disposable glasses that shield very well as well, as was mentioned above. I used to wear a pair of quality "Gargoyle" brand clear shooting glasses. The are expensive, but have perfect optics with no distortion and were developed for pistol target shooting. Plenty of "3M" safety glasses on the market, and it is now pretty easy to find them with built in bifocal readers for aging eyes.

  • Mar 28

    Quote from Bluebolt
    Yes, I don't understand the intense debate here. Is one trying to prove that anesthesia is the root cause of much more deaths than recorded?

    Even if the number is slightly different than what is cited I think you provided a ratio that was a minor difference, a fluctuation that could probably be argued in many research findings.

    We can all agree to disagree on the exact number and if there is so much passion on the topic begin your own in depth research on true deaths related to anesthesia. Start with Joan Rivers. Although as was pointed out earlier your results may still be skewed based on the acuity, coding, etc.

    I Think the the number is getting so small, that further study is kind of a waste. The data provided is mostly old data, and even then the number is in the range of 1:250K to 1:300K. Considering the dramatic increase in airway adjuncts and technology now commonplace, the actual incidence is likely far, far smaller. I just don't see the purpose of further studying the incidence of something so rare.

  • Mar 28

    Patients for elective procedures just really don't die very often. In 23 years of clinical practice, the ONLY deaths that I have ever seen are acute trauma cases, and nobody beats themselves up over those. Outside of the movies, Intra-op deaths are very, very rare.

    As far as getting paralyzed from an epidural, everyone always has a friend, of a friend, of a friend, who was paralyzed. We are usually told this as we are placing their labor epidural. Upon asking a few questions, it always turns out not to be the case. Epidural abscess is about the only real potential for any type of significant and meaningful paralysis, and those are exceedingly rare. When done correctly, anesthesia is extremely boring and drama free.

  • Mar 27

    Quote from Bluebolt
    Yes, I don't understand the intense debate here. Is one trying to prove that anesthesia is the root cause of much more deaths than recorded?

    Even if the number is slightly different than what is cited I think you provided a ratio that was a minor difference, a fluctuation that could probably be argued in many research findings.

    We can all agree to disagree on the exact number and if there is so much passion on the topic begin your own in depth research on true deaths related to anesthesia. Start with Joan Rivers. Although as was pointed out earlier your results may still be skewed based on the acuity, coding, etc.

    I Think the the number is getting so small, that further study is kind of a waste. The data provided is mostly old data, and even then the number is in the range of 1:250K to 1:300K. Considering the dramatic increase in airway adjuncts and technology now commonplace, the actual incidence is likely far, far smaller. I just don't see the purpose of further studying the incidence of something so rare.

  • Mar 26

    Quote from offlabel
    Oh....BTW, I'm A CRNA. But I still don't think that being in anesthesia is a prerequisite for this conversation, for what its worth.
    I Have my doubts.

  • Mar 26

    To answer your question, YES. It has improved THAT much over the last 20 years. Capnograpy, ultrasound, Glidescopes, Echo's, Vigileo, LMAs, and on and on and on. Huge technological advances that make anesthesia breathtakingly boring. Nobody who has practiced for the last 20 years could ask such a naive question.

    And are are you really debating, and trying to prove a point by insisting that the death rate is really 1:250K instead of 1:300K ?!?!?

  • Mar 26

    Quote from offlabel
    Oh....BTW, I'm A CRNA. But I still don't think that being in anesthesia is a prerequisite for this conversation, for what its worth.
    I Have my doubts.


close
close