dimpsogre

Congratulations, fellow AGPCNP =)) I totally agree with you regarding the LEIK book. So glad this is over.

Thank you! =) LEIK book is by far the best review book in my opinion. I liked Fitzgerald - she explained anemia so well. As far as offers, I never applied for a job but one of the attending at my hospital recommended me to another doctor. I will start working at a family practice clinic next month. Good luck to you.

Hello everyone! Happy to announce that I passed AGPCNP on 8/28/15. I graduated in July 28 and started reviewing the day after for a total of 4 weeks of studying. I gathered all my lecture notes from the last 3 semesters, went to Fitzgerald review in May and was given CDs of her lecture. I listened those in the car. I also did all Fitzgerald modules as well as practice questions. I got 71% (passing of 70%) on the 3rd week of my review and another one with a score of 83% few days before the exam. I also purchased Winland practice questions - only did half of the book. I also purchased Leik and studied it cover to cover. I did all the questions and made sure I knew all the exam tips by heart. I felt like LEIK helped me the most. There were probably 25% of LEIK tips on the exams. Some of them are written verbatim. I did an AANP practice exam and got 65% (passing of 66%). I also reviewed my Assessment book the night before - probably had few hours of sleep the last few days before the exams. I was so nervous! The questions were fair and doable. I had the most boring life for a month - worked twice a week and have a family to take care of. Let me know if you guys have any questions. I was offered a job a week before class ended so I had a little bit of pressure at hand. I wish all of you luck.

Thanks! Wow I didn't know Beaumont is that bad. That is my dream hospital to work at since I was in Michigan 8 years ago. How about Providence - now St. John's at Southfield?

I am currently in MS and probably moving there this August. If someone don't mind giving me a heads up on the current pay. TIA.

Hi, everyone! I am a filipino graduated from the Phils in 1991. I have been here in the US since 1994 thru my Mom. I had LPN license in Michigan in 1999 then moved to MS with my husband. I was pregnant at that time so I decided to not work and continue with the LPN license. I now hold an RN license for 2 years and have been working since. I never took CGFNS but some reputable reviewer evaluated my grades and said I didn't have to but took the RN NCLEX instead. My question is this: My husband is getting tenure in May and he has been applying for another position in the east coast to be closer to family. What will happen to my RN license. I know some States require CGFNS and some don't. Can I just apply for endorsement or do I have to take the CGFNS? Thanks in advance. Goodluck to everyone who is pursuing to come to the US. My cousin is in that position right now and she will be retaking her TEOFL due to her agency's mistake. They told her that her visa screen has been paid but we found out that they just paid it in January and her TOEFL expired in November of last year.

Hi, Suzanne, I was just wondering. I am an RN here in MS but want to relocate in MI maybe next year..I did not do the CGFNS anymore but have my credentials evaluated. My question is.. if I need to have my license endorsed in MI..do I still have to sit down for the CGFNS? Thanks.

I am thinking of relocating back to Michigan next year and planning to work at Royal Oak Beaumont Hospital. Do you know what the starting salary rate for Case Manager for Hospice? Thanks.

There's another hospital in Starkville. It's about 20 mins from columbus.

Not in those exact words. However, the very 1st amendment to the Constitution does specifically state that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." which is commonly referred to as the ‘separation’ of church and state. That is, there is to be no state-sponsored religious indoctrination. Anyone is free to express their religious views. However, certain government employees are required to temper this (while they are working) if their religious ‘expression’ crosses the line into indoctrination.

Just wanted to say hi to all of you folks at UM. I didn’t go to school there, but my husband did and we lived in A^2 for a while. When we were dating, he lived right across from the Medical Center—the apt. building on the corner of Catherine St., which is across from Angelos & the parking structure connected to the Medical Center by the overhead pedestrian bridge. We live far away now, and both miss that city. It’s a great place to live. Go blue!

I personally don't know much about either school, but why don't you just apply to both? There's a chance you'll get into SDS, but maybe PLU could be your back-up. Good luck.

I believe you are incorrect. There are only two studies (that I am aware of) published in peer-reviewed scientific (medical) journals that claim to be double-blind and that claim that intercessory prayer has significant beneficial effects. The first is: "Positive Therapeutic Effects Of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population." R.C. Byrd. Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9 . However, investigators later discovered that Byrd (the researcher who conducted the study) himself measured patient outcomes after knowing which patients were in which group (prayer or non-prayer). That is, it actually was not double-blind. Also, the only benefits found were those when subjective measures were considered, but when objective measures were considered (length of stay in intensive care, stay in the hospital overall, number of medications that were necessary at discharge, etc.), there was no differences found between the groups. This study is thus not taken seriously in the scientific community. The second study is: Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, Strychacz CP, Vacek JL, Jones PG, et al. "A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit." Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-8. The study considered three outcomes: "speed of recovery", "overall outcome" and "adverse condition." The former two showed essentially no effect, while the latter showed a small advantage at the boundary of what would be considered chance results. Thus, there is a one possible positive benefit (out of 3 criteria measured), but not at a significant enough level to avoid explanation by chance. Here I assume you're referring to the information presented in the book by Dr. Larry Dossey? Unfortunately there are two problems with the studies that he presents: 1) many were unpublished in the scientific literature. This is a very bad sign. If a study can't be published in a scientific journal, it likely contains serious flaws. 2) For those that were published, most have confidence levels (p-values) of 0.01; but the 'standard' is generally considered to be 0.0001 (a difference of 2 orders of magnitude) to avoid chance (i.e. false positive) results. Scientifically, your last sentence is the key. If the results are not repeatable, they are not considered scientifically credible, as repeatability is absolutely necessary for scientific legitimacy. Thus, the negative double-blind studies that report no affect on health from intercessory prayer (such as the most recent negative, which is the largest to date: Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Green CL, et al. Integrative neotic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am Heart J. 2001; 142;760-769) fatally damage the credibility of the few positives. Cool discussion #2.

I believe you are incorrect. There are only two studies (that I am aware of) published in peer-reviewed scientific (medical) journals that claim to be double-blind and that claim that intercessory prayer has significant beneficial effects. The first is: "Positive Therapeutic Effects Of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population." R.C. Byrd. Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9 . However, investigators later discovered that Byrd (the researcher who conducted the study) himself measured patient outcomes after knowing which patients were in which group (prayer or non-prayer). That is, it actually was not double-blind. Also, the only benefits found were those when subjective measures were considered, but when objective measures were considered (length of stay in intensive care, stay in the hospital overall, number of medications that were necessary at discharge, etc.), there was no differences found between the groups. This study is thus not taken seriously in the scientific community. The second study is: Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, Strychacz CP, Vacek JL, Jones PG, et al. "A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit." Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-8. The study considered three outcomes: "speed of recovery", "overall outcome" and "adverse condition." The former two showed essentially no effect, while the latter showed a small advantage at the boundary of what would be considered chance results. Thus, there is a one possible positive benefit (out of 3 criteria measured), but not at a significant enough level to avoid explanation by chance. Here I assume you're referring to the information presented in the book by Dr. Larry Dossey? Unfortunately there are two problems with the studies that he presents: 1) many were unpublished in the scientific literature. This is a very bad sign. If a study can't be published in a scientific journal, it likely contains serious flaws. 2) For those that were published, most have confidence levels (p-values) of 0.01; but the 'standard' is generally considered to be 0.0001 (a difference of 2 orders of magnitude) to avoid chance (i.e. false positive) results. Scientifically, your last sentence is the key. If the results are not repeatable, they are not considered scientifically credible, as repeatability is absolutely necessary for scientific legitimacy. Thus, the negative double-blind studies that report no affect on health from intercessory prayer (such as the most recent negative, which is the largest to date: Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Green CL, et al. Integrative neotic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am Heart J. 2001; 142;760-769) fatally damage the credibility of the few positives. Cool discussion #2.

This is not exactly true. First note that entropy may either increase (for irreversible processes) or stay the same (for reversible processes). However, it is true that very few processes are actually 'reversible.' But more importantly, the relationship between "entropy" and "order" in the physical sciences is a vague relationship at best. That is, "order" and "randomness" are only important with respect to the laws of thermo if the order causes a change in the 'useful' energy of the system. For example, if I have a deck of cards randomly stacked, the deck has exactly the same entropy as a deck of cards perfectly ordered. Why? Because if I burn both decks of cards in a calorimeter and measure the heat output across a certain temperature range (this is in fact how the entropy content of a mass is determined), the results will be exactly the same. Thus be careful with the flawed analogy 'entropy' = 'order'. I think this definition became blurred in recent years because the IT field uses its own definition of 'entropy', which has nothing at all to do with the laws of thermo, and in this field it simply defined as a measure of mathematical randomness. Be careful here. The net total entropy of the universe is always increasing (or staying the same). However, the entropy of any object within the universe may easily decreased by reordering its structure such that it can produce more useful work. Cooling an object down, for example, generally decreases the entropy of that object. However, the net entropy change in the entire universe *increases*. That is, work was done (via the compressor) to cool down food in your refrigerator. This transfer of energy (burning coal to produce the electricity to run the motor, etc) increased the total entropy beyond that of the localized decrease in entropy of the frozen foods, such that the *net* entropy in the universe increased. Same can be said for biological systems. Some creatures may experience a decrease in entropy via evolution (And is this even true? Do biological systems have any less entropy than non-biological? The question to answer is: what is the fuel potential for living things vs. non-living things) but the use and transfer of energy used in growth and development (ultimately, from the sun) causes a net increase in entropy to the universe. Cool discussion.