leemoohan7

i dont exactly understand why you are talking about deficiency of transcript. well,to me, theres nothing wrong with the structure of TOR from PH schools. If you mean about the itemization of concepts within the subjects, thats pretty normal not having a list of concepts written in the TOR. This is the reason why course description is needed when submitting your TOR for evaluation. And improving transcript to fit in with the cases in the exhibits does not make any sense because there is no problem with the TOR. If your school in PH follows the CHED policies and standards for BSN program, chances is that the BSN transcript is more than enough than the prelicensure courses offered here. Again I am not talking about the deficiency of transcript nor the number of hrs alloted for the clinicals. I am pointing out that there should be a CLEAR delineation of EXHIBIT as a LICENSURE requirement and never be regarded as PART OF THE CURRICULUM. If the exhibit will be used to check concurrency, then it must be known that not all cases were performed during the nsg program due to aforementioned reason. and given that exhibits are not a curricular requirement then the board should be opened to the idea that not all graduates can provide them a copy of this - say a US citizen who had education in PH and didnt take the local boards. In this case, the student has to produce a document that validates concurrency of theory and practice. To give you a better picture of my concern, below is a simple presentation of exhibit, Example: Per TOR, NCM 103 was taken SY 2007-2008, 2nd semester Exhibits: Case 1 - Dec 1, 2008 Case 2 - Dec 7, 2008 Case 3 - Dec 10, 2008 Case 4 - April 3, 2011 Case 5 - April 3, 2011 As you see above, Case 1, 2, 3 are performed within the set schedule and they are concurrent to the subject as presented in the TOR. However, since cases 4 & 5 are obviously done years after the subject was taken(perhaps after graduation), it could be misinterpreted as not concurrent. This very point is what im trying to discuss. I knew few applicants for endorsement who were denied because of this. FYI, their clinical hours and subjects are sufficient, but since not all cases are done during the set schedule of the subject, they were still denied and advised to take again related subjects covered by the exhbits, that is MS and OB. Is the case above denied due to concurrency? I dont think it is. It was denied due to misinterpretation of the exhibits. Like in the above exhibit, 3 cases simultaneous to the relevant subject is a SOLID proof that there was really a CLINICAL DUTY that took place at the time when a related subject was tackled. However, since CBRN wants applicants to have all cases finished before the end of the rotation, then the basis of their denial is OBVIOUSLY not of CONCURRENCY. In this case, the student should have presented other docs that supports concurrency of theory and practice. It could be a clinical checklist with dates and signatories because this document can be counterchecked through transcript. BUT then again, since CBRN has idea already about the existence of exhibits, they automatically deny applicants with same presentation of exhibits as above. Now tell me, how do you understand concurrency (only) in the case above? Honestly, I will accept to whatever policy CBRN has to present tous but analysing the exhibit in the above manner is just wrong. It would have been better if they will just reject applicants because they are foreign graduates. By that, IEN will be warned and not waste anymore their money and time by attempting to process an application. anyway, thats just my concern here. denial on the basis of concurrency using the exhibit that contains 2 or 3 cases congruent to the related theory

Hi guys. Ive been reading about endorsement of RN license to CA for months now and the cause of denial with applications are always the same - concurrency. I just wanna ask you folks about the "idea" on concurrency. BtW, i was a nsg educator back in PH and of course i have a full understanding about the curriculum offered there. I noticed that CA has been using EXHIBIT FORMS as basis to check concurrency of theory and practice because many nsg schools in the philippines fall short in having a detailed documentation for the clinicals of students. While it may sound logical to use the exhibit form, cases written there are not always concurrent with the relevant subjects because the number of cases required by the prc for LICENSURE PURPOSES may not be met within the scheduled clinical rotation. Consequently, students do additional cases in compliance with the said licensure requirement which makes the exhibit (some cases) seemingly incongruent to the schedule of subjects presented on the transcript or RLE summary. If I have to quote the B&P code of CA, the concurrency talks about the subj and its clinical portion. To determine concurrency, theory must be taken SIMULTANEOUSLY with clinicals (with appropriate number of hours). For us PH grads, the subjects both theory and RLE can be seen in the TOR but presented in cluster - example NCM 102 and NCM 102-RLE which are both taken within the same semester. With this, TOR deemed to be insufficient document to determine whether nsg concepts within the subject were taken concurrently with the clinicals because the TOR doesnt show/itemize the nsg concepts within the given subject (not to mention also the exact dates). This gives way to the idea of a need to have other document that can support concurrency. and this what CBRN is actually doing. They are using EXHIBIT FORMS (not to mention other docs) because it show dates of SPECIFIC CASES that may be compared to relevant nsg concept - say, newborn delivery MUST be performed only when Maternity/OB concept was already taught. This strategy of using clinical exhibits is very reasonable. But i would like to point out that EXHIBITS are not legitimate documents that equates CLINICAL PORTION of the subject. It is just a DOCUMENTATION of SPECIFIC PROCEDURES that are needed later for the application of PH nsg licensure. Obviously, a student will still finish the BSN program without the exhibits (like the case of US citizen, who doesnt have plans to practice in the PH) provided that he undergone the required curriculum - that is taking needed subjects and the recommended hrs for clinicals. If he does so, then he is a BSN graduate, but not a Phil. RN, because to become a Phil.RN, you need not only be a graduate of BSN but also passed the licensure exam which entails submission of COMPLETED EXHIBIT. Say, a student finished his NCM 101 with 6 cases (2actual deliveries, 3assisted deliveries, 1 cordcare), does not mean that this student lacks the needed hours for the clinicals nor he is deficient of needed subjects. This student completed the number of hours needed for the subj/clinicals but was not able to finish the needed cases for LICENSURE. The completion cases that may be done in the future if this student will take the PNLE should not be regarded as part of the curriculum because the additional cases dont give merit to the TOR anymore nor the diploma granted during graduation. Completion is done for licensure purposes and not for completing the nursing curriculum. therefore, if the student doesnt have the completed exhibit forms and will not take the board exam, it doesnt make him a lesser BSN graduate. He is still a BSN graduate but unlicensed. If we have to submit the TOR of this graduate to the CGFNs, the curriculum he acquired still is comparable with BSN in the US. So, can exhibit forms be used to check concurrency? definitely YES. However, cases should not be regarded as exact equivalent of clinical portion. a case or two congruent with the relevant nsg subject is ENOUGH information to support concurrency. The remaining cases that seemingly out of place should not automatically interpreted as not acceptable. This reason makes the exhibit form a misleading documentation to prove concurrency if the evaluator doesnt have full grasp of the idea. I really wonder nobody gets the same idea in the forum (or maybe i just havent find one). Or not even one made this thing clear during the meeting of CBRN with the CHED and PNA of America. Or maybe, CHED or PNA doesnt know that CBRN were using the exhibit forms in the said manner. If you happen to read the position statement of PNA of America and CHED regarding this matter, both agree with the CBRNs regulations. While it is true that they empasize concurrency, the position statements don't talk about exhibit forms as part of curricular requirement - it is still a licensure requirement in the Phil. However, i knew from the nursing school i worked before, that the number of cases required was already reduced and that it must be completed before graduation. does it sound logical? No! first, it just means that they did not CATCH the whole point- that exhibits are not a curricular requirement, it is only a documentation. where did these changes are anchored into? what is the legal basis? is there a CHED memorandum on this? when did it start? after the joint meeting? as an educator, the most important concern in the nsg curriculum is honing the student to acquire the needed competency in each key areas of responsibilities... and not just collecting cases. Delivering a baby, doing cord care, assisting an operation are just small chunks from the truest essence of becoming a competent nurse. We have to understand that many other procedures not listed in these exhibit forms are performed- like FHT monitoring, administering MgSO4 for maternal High BP, perineal prep, etc. This should be the focus of the documentation. Improving or devising a record that supports concurrency. But for the concern of many, this is my ONLY point - misconception/misuse of the exhibit forms. BTW, if your RLE summary and TOR are not congruent to each other, thats a different case. This post is limited only to those who were denied based on exhibit forms. And one more thing, if you have not performed even 1 case in the scheduled clinical rotation, that makes it impossible to contest concurrency using exhibit forms. and I must admit, you should be denied on that. But for those who have at least 2 cases that were actually performed during the scheduled clinicals, it must be enough to prove concurrency. Im sorry I have to say this, I really wonder why theres so many blahblahblah in the forum, when the main concern is actually concurrency. We just have to prove to the board concurreny of our subjects. But considering ALL cases in the exhibit form as clinical equivalent.., thats just so wrong. Good luck to us.

[email protected]

hi Juandelacruz. really? in which aspect albuquerque is more attractive than vegas? how can.u consider a place as livable? My family is in california..thats why i only have Oregon and Nevada in mind so that I can visit them regularly. It would be a great advantage of course if I work in NM - no hassle for endorsement and not that far from Cali. How many years uve been in NM?

i worked in a remote place in Saudi before. I dont want to experience lifeless life in the middle of a desert anymore. Geographically, Nevada is likely the same but it is more populated and u know Las Vegas stuffs. I really wonder why u were denied from a visa. I believe u have VS certificate, right? that is the minimum requirement to qualify for an EB3 visa aside from employer's sponsorship

hi ysejikem. my interview was very smooth. and that time, i didnt have a RN license. I had visascreen which I acquire through CGNS qualifying exam plus an english proficiency. The consul asked me only 2 questions, about the employer and the offered salary. He didnt ask if I already have a RN license . When I got here in California, I took NCLEX for a New Mexico license since I processed for the said exam when I was in PH and had no SSN. I didnt have a single idea about the problem with the BON California until I initiated the process for endorsement. So now, Im planning to move in another state where I can apply for reciprocal license without delays. To cut it short, I cant work for my sponsor of course, I have my greencard, USRN (New Mexico) license, and discerning which state I will apply for license endorsement. By the way, I applied endorsement of license with Cali BON and still waiting for reply. I also started the process for Nevada. Im optimistic with the latter. I hope u get through ur embassy interview. The most important thing is to get here and have ur greencard. Good luck

Hi. In New Mexico. Hows your application for endorsement of license.

thanks. actually, i just realize that my immigration lawyer could possibly be biased with me. After I sought advice from them, I never heard any response or decision from my employer in my case. I was thinking, all i've said to the lawyer were relayed to my employer because I never received reply from them like a correspondence that I can use as proof in the future that I have presented myself in good faith and that my deficiency (unlicensed) cause them to deny me of employment. I also called the USCIS and they told me that for as long as im a LPR Im free to move around and can look for other employers. the requirements for naturalization doesnt include if I have worked for my petitioner.. Thanks!

i came to read the link. obviously, the culprit of the problem is the lack of proper documentation of PHIL NSG SCHOOLS. Both the theory and practice should be finished prior to graduation. If you are a Filipino, u must have understood about EXHIBIT FORMS- It is where cases are written or documented. The forms will not show how many hours were spent in the clinicals, but it will only present the cases a student did. Even a student has graduated and completed both theory and clinical, he or she is still not eligible to take the Phil. licensure exam. the exhibits forms are used as a proof to show the required number of cases done and should never be used by CBRN as a reliable documentation to scrutinize if the student has spent a clinical hours congruent to the subjects taken. Its a mere list of cases. If the cases did not reach the required number, then a student cannot take licensing. It will not show that the student did not have clinicals when s/he was still a student. Yet, the CBRN are asking these documents and make it equivalent documentation for students' clinicals. As what PNA has claimed, they will make efforts to improve documentation of the RLE portion of the nsg program. The CBRN must resort to conducting a thorough investigation on this matter.If the issue they are raising is on concurrency, then the approriate documentation should be the one sent from the school and I believe no school can provide ever such for now, since no documentation of that kind - only a piece of paper with summary of the number of hours; with regards to actual dates, I dont think there is. And if the CBRN advised FIL applicants to take additional courses, will these applicants perform actual delivery in the hospitals to mend the concurrency of cases presented in the exhibit.forms (if they are oointing out the cases in the form)? are students here in the US allowed to do the actual delivery? And why these Fil graduates who are all BSN cannot be qualified to take NCLEX RN, when one with associate degree can easily qualify himself?

not really. as i've said its not a requirement of any school :)

for your info and for everyone who has been battled by this concurrency issue.... Philippine Nursing Curriculum requires concurrency of theory and practice. The problem actually of CBRN is that, they look into the exhibit forms and made it a basis for the clinical portion of the subjects - which is definitely wrong. The records (like number of actual and assisted deliveries) in the exhibit forms are primarily used by Filipino nurses to be eligible to take the Philippine Nursing Licensure Examination. That is why, even when we are done with our clinicals for a certain subject like OB, we make sure that after graduation we have to complete the required number of cases to be qualified for Phil. Licensure. But it doesnt mean that we delay the clinical portion of any subject. In fact, one or two entries/cases in the exhibit forms corresponds with the time of the theoretical portion of the case because it was taken simultaneously and all other cases were done after graduation as compliance for the requirement for Phil. licensure.

Hi. I came in the US (California) through an IV EB3. When I got here, I received my permanent resident card, SS ID, and applied for reciprocity of Nursing license to start working for my petitioner as a RN. However, the California Board of Nursing denied me of a license eventhough I hold a RN license from other state. They advised me to undergo additional coursework before I can be eligible for a California RN license. None of my employer and immigration lawyer informed me beforehand about this problem with the Cali Board of Nursing. In fact, the job offered to me and presented in the US embassy back home is a RN position -So, I assume a smooth transition once I just get my visa. My problem now is that I cannot work as a RN. My employer advised me to process for a LVN license instead and they cannot spend for my additional coursework if I really intend to practice as a RN. I thought of going in other state since I have my permanent resident card already, and just apply for a RN job with other employer. By the way, I did not sign any contract with my petitioner and I was the one who paid for immigration services - not them. The only thing that cause me to hesistate with my plans of moving into another state is that they are my petitioner. And I thought I'll be having problems in the future once I apply for naturalization - since not working for my petitioner could be a fraud. Need some expert advise.. thanks.