Part 2, Instructor-Led Event: The second part of the course is the mandatory classroom portion including demonstration, hands-on practice, skills evaluation, simulation, and debriefing. On the day of your classroom session, an instructor will demonstrate the skills and be available to coach you before testing begins. You must successfully pass all portions of the required NRP Online Exam before participating in the classroom portion of the course. You will be expected to demonstrate neonatal resuscitation skills and participate in a team resuscitation and debriefing. Successful completion of the online learning assessment, online exam, and skills demonstration will result in an American Academy of Pediatrics NRP certification card valid for two years.
Neonatal Resuscitation Program Test Answers Zip
NRP is an educational program that introduces the concepts and skills of neonatal resuscitation. In Canada, NRP is administered by the Canadian Paediatric Society and is designed to teach individuals and teams who may be required to resuscitate newborn babies. NRP course content is evidence-based and delivered across Canada in both English and French to over 45,000 health care professionals.
A: A letter from the NP Program Director or Academic Dean is required if the candidate is requesting to test prior to their program completion date or the program completion and degree conferred dates are more than 30 days apart. Email the letter to certification@aanpcert.org.
A: A letter from the NP Program Director or Academic Dean is required if a candidate is requesting to test prior to the program completion date on the application or the program completion and degree conferred dates are more than 30 days apart. Email the letter to certification@aanpcert.org.
A: Candidates have 3 hours (180 minutes) to complete the examination. An introductory tutorial to the computer and keyboard is provided before the exam starts. Time spent on the tutorial does not count as part of your test time. Sample questions are included following the tutorial so that you may practice using the keyboard to answer questions, mark items to review, and review answers.
A: It may take up to one week for scores to be processed for final release. An official final transcript with the degree awarded and date conferred by the NP program is required before a test taker may receive their official score letter. For post-graduate (post-masters) certificate candidates, an official final MSN transcript is also required. An official score report letter will be mailed within 2 weeks. A candidate may request that a copy of the score report be emailed to them after it becomes available.
Mentoring is considered a fundamental component of career success and satisfaction in academic medicine. However, there is no national standard for faculty mentoring in academic emergency medicine (EM) and a paucity of literature on the subject. The objective was to conduct a descriptive study of faculty mentoring programs and practices in academic departments of EM. An electronic survey instrument was sent to 135 department chairs of EM in the United States. The survey queried faculty demographics, mentoring practices, structure, training, expectations, and outcome measures. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare metrics of mentoring effectiveness (i.e., number of publications and National Institutes of Health [NIH] funding) across mentoring variables of interest. Thirty-nine of 135 departments completed the survey, with a heterogeneous mix of faculty classifications. While only 43.6% of departments had formal mentoring programs, many augmented faculty mentoring with project or skills-based mentoring (66.7%), peer mentoring (53.8%), and mentoring committees (18%). Although the majority of departments expected faculty to participate in mentoring relationships, only half offered some form of mentoring training. The mean number of faculty publications per department per year was 52.8, and 11 departments fell within the top 35 NIH-funded EM departments. There was an association between higher levels of perceived mentoring success and both higher NIH funding (p = 0.022) and higher departmental publications rates (p = 0.022). In addition, higher NIH funding was associated with mentoring relationships that were assigned (80%), self-identified (20%), or mixed (22%; p = 0.026). Our findings help to characterize the variability of faculty mentoring in EM, identify opportunities for improvement, and underscore the need to learn from other successful mentoring programs. This study can serve as a basis to share mentoring practices and stimulate
We evaluated emergency department (ED) provider adherence to guidelines for concurrent HIV-sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing within an expanded HIV testing program and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with concurrent HIV-STD testing. We examined concurrent HIV-STD testing in a suburban academic ED with a targeted, expanded HIV testing program. Patients aged 18-64 years who were tested for syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in 2009 were evaluated for concurrent HIV testing. We analyzed demographic and clinical factors associated with concurrent HIV-STD testing using multivariate logistic regression with a robust variance estimator or, where applicable, exact logistic regression. Only 28.3% of patients tested for syphilis, 3.8% tested for gonorrhea, and 3.8% tested for chlamydia were concurrently tested for HIV during an ED visit. Concurrent HIV-syphilis testing was more likely among younger patients aged 25-34 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78, 2.10) and patients with STD-related chief complaints at triage (AOR=11.47, 95% CI 5.49, 25.06). Concurrent HIV-gonorrhea/chlamydia testing was more likely among men (gonorrhea: AOR=3.98, 95% CI 2.25, 7.02; chlamydia: AOR=3.25, 95% CI 1.80, 5.86) and less likely among patients with STD-related chief complaints at triage (gonorrhea: AOR=0.31, 95% CI 0.13, 0.82; chlamydia: AOR=0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.50). Concurrent HIV-STD testing in an academic ED remains low. Systematic interventions that remove the decision-making burden of ordering an HIV test from providers may increase HIV testing in this high-risk population of suspected STD patients.
The Choosing Wisely campaign was launched in 2011 to promote stewardship of medical resources by encouraging patients and physicians to speak with each other regarding the appropriateness of common tests and procedures. Medical societies including the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) have developed lists of potentially low-value practices for their members to address with patients. No research has described the awareness or attitudes of emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the Choosing Wisely campaign. The study objective was to assess these beliefs among leaders of academic departments of emergency medicine (EM). This was a Web-based survey of emergency department (ED) chairs and division chiefs at institutions with allopathic EM residency programs. The survey examined awareness of Choosing Wisely, anticipated effects of the program, and discussions of Choosing Wisely with patients and professional colleagues. Participants also identified factors they associated with the use of potentially low-value services in the ED. Questions and answer scales were refined using iterative pilot testing with EPs and health services researchers. Seventy-eight percent (105/134) of invited participants responded to the survey. Eighty percent of respondents were aware of Choosing Wisely. A majority of participants anticipate the program will decrease costs of care (72% of respondents) and use of ED diagnostic imaging (69%) but will have no effect on EP salaries (94%) or medical-legal risks (65%). Only 45% of chairs have ever addressed Choosing Wisely with patients, in contrast to 88 and 82% who have discussed it with faculty and residents, respectively. Consultant-requested tests were identified by 97% of residents as a potential contributor to low-value services in the ED. A substantial majority of academic EM leaders in our study were aware of Choosing Wisely, but only slightly more than half could recall any ACEP recommendations for the program. Respondents
The aim of this study was to determine whether the distribution of publications among academic radiology departments in the United States is Gaussian (ie, the bell curve) or Paretian. The search affiliation feature of the PubMed database was used to search for publications in 3 general radiology journals with high Impact Factors, originating at radiology departments in the United States affiliated with residency training programs. The distribution of the number of publications among departments was examined using χ(2) test statistics to determine whether it followed a Pareto or a Gaussian distribution more closely. A total of 14,219 publications contributed since 1987 by faculty members in 163 departments with residency programs were available for assessment. The data acquired were more consistent with a Pareto (χ(2) = 80.4) than a Gaussian (χ(2) = 659.5) distribution. The mean number of publications for departments was 79.9 146 (range, 0-943). The median number of publications was 16.5. The majority (>50%) of major radiology publications from academic departments with residency programs originated in
To characterize the approach of academic chairs of anesthesiology in leading and managing their departments, and to gain insights into what they considered the most difficult challenges as chairs. Internet-based survey instrument conducted during July and August of 2006. Academic medical center. Department chairs of 132 academic anesthesiology programs who were listed on the Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs Listserv, were surveyed. The overall number of respondents were reported. However, as all questions were voluntary, not all were answered by each respondent. Observations are therefore reported as absolute numbers and percentages on a question-by-question basis. Respondents were asked to rank responses to some questions in order of importance (eg, 1 = most important). These data are presented as rank ordered median values, determined by the Kruskal-Wallis Test. Significant differences between groups were determined by Dunn's post test. A P-value 2ff7e9595c
コメント