Nurse 1 2017-2024 Form

Check this link;http://career.webindia123.com/ca...https://www.brainbuxa.com › Exams

Could be many reasons.Most common is that you are a new patient and after all that paperwork filling out you want to see the doctor as soon as possible. After all you came to see the doc, not fill out paperwork, right?So after you fill out the paperwork your answers are still in the papers and not in your electronic health record (EHR). Most of the answers aren’t even for the doctor: they are for insurance, billing and legal purposes. All that information will have to be scanned or entered by the nurse or medical tech, but he’s already on to another patient. He’ll have to do it later.The doc has just seen another patient. She’s only had time to fill out a skeletal note in the EHR for that patient that she will have to finish after she’s done seeing patients and before she goes home. If she doesn’t complete that not in 48 hours she could face fines and in some cases, dismissal depending on state or health system.Now she picks up your folder. There is a sheaf of forms and a blank health record with likely only your name and insurance number in it. Would you rather she spent 15 minutes reviewing what you wrote or actually meeting with you and asking some of those same questions?Most patients will likely choose the latter. Again, you’re there to see the doctor, not to fill out forms.And guess what? It’s only going to get worse as health care becomes more bureaucratic.

27 December 1999. It was at 4.30 in the morning.It was during the month of Ramadaan, and my father was having breakfast with my three siblings and I when the phone rang. Everyone in the house went pale.I answered the call.The nurse on the other end of the line asked to speak to my father. There was a sense of urgency in her voice that I will never forget. Two minutes later Dad was out of the front door and tearing down the street as fast as his yellow Toyota Corolla could take him.I was in left in charge of my siblings; I had just recently turned 18 years old.At 4.45 the telephone rang again. Once more, the nurse asked for my father.I told her that he had already left for the hospital, and asked her what happened. She hesitated… and then told me that they would wait until my father arrived.In that moment I knew that my mom has passed away. She had spent a lifetime suffering from the devastation of Lupus and had finally succumbed.On the 27th of December 1999, I saw my father crumble. I saw my siblings, aged 9 through 14, lost in a way that nobody should bear witness to.On that day I made a resolution to take myself out of the equation to be able to say “fuck everything and stand firm” to keep going so that others didn’t need to push so hard to try and pick up the pieces of their lives.On the 27th of December 1999, I decided to step up the the plate, and in that moment I lost my childhood.

Edit: This story about Aetna being successfully sued for 25M USD only happens in America and is, in my view the main argument why being scared of “single payer systems” is ill advised.Lets start by making sure we have the same understanding of things:Single payer = where one entity (usually a government entity) uses a pool of funds paid into by the whole community/country to pay the health care providers (doctors/nurses/pharma) for the services they provide to the community.Socialism = a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.Socialist country = as defined above would be countries like Mainland China, the former soviet union, cuba, vietnam, depending on how you look at it North Korea…Socialism (bis): Often used by political parties who propose a society where the richer pay a larger tax in order to support infrastructure and policies that also support the lower income portion of the population.Although to a lesser extent than most advanced nations, the US is a Socialist(bis) nation. Less so than most countries in Europe, but you do have medicaid and host of services offered by the government.My first question to you is which of the two definitions are you using?For the sake of the argument I am going to assume you are using definition (bis) which includes countries like Denmark, Finland, Australia, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Canada.Within Single Payer there are many ways to do it and two levels:Reference: List of countries with universal health care - WikipediaFree Health care: Free health care refers to a publicly funded health care that provides primary services free of charge or a nominal fee to all its citizens, with no exclusions based on income or wealth.[3]Universal Health Care: Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system that provides healthcare and financial protection to more than 90% of the citizens of a particular country.[4]There are 118 countries who provide both Free and universal health care.These include: All of the countries I listed above as examples of “socialist (Bis)” countries, as well as other countries such as Vanuatu, Palau, Uruguay, Chile etc etc.There are 43 countries that provide neither of these. ie if you are sick you are on your own or at the mercy of the free market.These include Iran, Iraq, China (a socialist country in the real sense of the word), Turkmenistan etc … with two exceptions, all poor countries who are behind in their development. Exception 1 is China…(although one can debate as to exactly how advanced it is). Exception 2 is the United States of America.So only 25% of countries provide neither universal nor free healthcare… And with the exception of the US, they are all poor countries (if one thinks a majority of Chinese people are still in poverty)Over 50% of countries provide both. Do you see mass demonstrations in the news about health care being bad in 50% of the world?The fact that 50% of the world (including a large number of democracies) are voting for policies and to keep single payer systems alone is an indication. Now please go on the net, and do some research, and tell me what percentage of the world outside of the US is looking at the US health care system and saying “maybe we should do like them”… (ie the perception the US system is better than the one they have now). While you will for sure find many many pages about how they wish their system to be improved, I challenge you to find information on a country in which people are voting for law makers who propose to change to the “multi payer “ system the US has… In fact I challenge you to find a law maker outside of the US who is even suggesting (never mind pushing for policy) their country should move from single payer to multi payer. Does that tell you anything? Do you think their might be a reason for that?Now lets look at the results. The point of the health care system is to keep you alive and healthy so lets look at track records:I don’t know about you but I think children are important. So what is better to help children: Single payer or not? According to your logic (ie single payer is bad), countries with single payer should have a higher mortality rate and those without should have a lower mortality rate for children. Here is how the CDC (US organisation) ranks infant mortality rates in the world: US… 27!!!!! BEHIND Poland Hungary and Slovakia, all of which are signNowly less wealthy countries than the US. Please also note that EVERY SINGLE country ranked above the US on that list has both free and universal health care / single payer. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nv...)But maybe infants/children are not important to you. Lets look at life expectancy:The US is 31 !!… behind countries like Slovenia, Chile and Costa Rica… not exactly known for being paradise of wealth and health on earth (with all due respect to these countries which I happen to like)List of countries by life expectancy - WikipediaMaybe you say, I’m not interested in living long. OK lets go to how does the World Health Organisation rank national health care systems ? Keep in mind the WHO (as it is known) incurs strong influence from he US.US Ranking : 37… BEHIND Morocco (Single Payer, Universal) and Colombia (Single Payer, Universal and Free)!!!World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health SystemsI challenge you to find one … 1… one ranking where the US health care system (or lack therein of) comes in the top 10 for positive outcomes for the population at large.So, I’m sorry but what is scaring you exactly?Please tell us so we can look at it.Thank youEdit: Let me add the economic side to it.“The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person”Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other CountriesSo look at this way: not only is multi payer system inferior to single payer at keeping you alive longer and keeping children healthy and alive longer, it also costs about TWO TIMES MORE per person than Switzerland (ranked 20) , Netherlands (ranked 17) and Norway (ranked 11). Which implies the top ten countries pay less than half what the US pays per person to be in top 10 except the US is 37 out of 200 countries…So lets put it this way: Your multi payer health care system actually performs in such a way you spend twice as much as #11,17,and 20, and nearly 3 times over the global average to make it to #37 BEHIND THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, as shown by the infant mortality rate and life expectancy rate. Think about it this way: if you spent the same as the rest of the world, you would be #80 something…with every one of these countries having single payer…. And by the way, in the case of Single payer, when we say “costing them”, the government pays, so people are not going bankrupt because of health issues. In your case, it is YOU… paying and when you have cancer, diabetes, or some form of heart disease, it is you who will be paying much MORE than 8,000 dollars, where a single payer patient would be paying probably around $500 if you average out across the different systems (ie, the govt pays most of the bill and the individual is left with 10~30% depending on which country it is, a bit like a deductible if you like)…. So not only do you not seem to like to live long, and not seem to think it is important to give your kids the medical care they need to prevent them from dying at a higher rate, you also seem to like paying 12 times (when comparing what is paid by the patient) more for the privilege of not getting what people in other countries do get. So you are terrified of what?EDIT: This is one of many perfect examples of why single payer works much better:Girl has words for Aetna after brain surgery deniedThis ONLY happens in the US on a very very REGULAR basis. I might add when I was living in the US, my insurance denied a trip to the hospital for my then wife who was complaining about acute stomach pain. “wait till tomorrow” they said We went anyway. She was operated on immediately. She had peritonitis. She ran the risk of dying because I had to choose between paying thousands of dollars (I was billed 6,000 for the ambulance) or wait till the next day. A company who has a financial interest in making sure you don’t get treatment should not be allowed to make decisions on whether you need it or not.EDIT 2: Here is a graphic that says something: Notice less advanced and far less rich countries than the US have it too, and notice non of them are “Socialist” as defined in the dictionary and executed in the USSR or China.

Because single payer plans like the UK’s NHS and Canada’s national healthcare system are running into the same exploding financial problems that the United States is having due to the tremendous costs of new technologies and new expensive drugs. Those systems are not handling the growth in expenses well either.But they react differently. Instead of rapidly building new facilities and installing new high tech machines as occurs in every city in the United States, the UK and Canada slow things down with budget creep. They can’t commit political suicide with huge tax increases that would hurt their economies so they incrementally pass increases. That signNowly delays but doesn’t prevent new technologies coming into play (Most cities in the US have more MRI and PET scanners than entire Canadian provinces.It’s a form of government rationing because budget restrictions create a shortage for everyone in the system, resulting in waiting lists that some patients never get off. Their citizens mostly accept that for non-emergencies because fortunately, as in the US, most people don’t require sophisticated or advanced medical care. When they cannot accept it, they leave the system and fund their own private healthcare.Before Obamacare, more than 85% of Americans expressed approval of their healthcare. That number has fallen somewhat but still represents a sizable majority.Most Americans don’t want what a federally run program would entail. They don’t want their options reduced. They don’t want to be put on waiting lists. They don’t want to lose their choice of physicians and hospitals. They don’t want bureaucratic layer upon layer getting in the way of their healthcare. In short, they don’t want what Medicaid patients currently get. They also don’t want what we’ve been hearing that a signNow number of American’s veterans get.Many Democrats say they want Medicare for all. Medicare simply doesn’t pay the bills of hospitals and doctors. Medicare exists at it’s current high level of care because a signNow part of the care is cost shifted from the 170 million Americans who have employer based health insurance.I’ve used Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Krugman’s response to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan time and time again. Krugman was a big supporter of Obamacare and also of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. So here goes again:My column and Bernie Sanders’ plan crossed in the mail. But the Sanders plan in a way reinforces my point that calls for single-payer in America at this point are basically a distraction. Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer — but it’s just not going to happen anytime soon.Put it this way: for all the talk about being honest and upfront, even Sanders ended up delivering mostly smoke and mirrors — or as Ezra Klein says, puppies and rainbows. Despite imposing large middle-class taxes, his “gesture toward a future plan”, as Ezra puts it, relies on the assumption of huge cost savings. If you like, it involves a huge magic asterisk.Now, it’s true that single-payer systems in other advanced countries are much cheaper than our health care system. And some of that could be replicated via lower administrative costs and the generally lower prices Medicare pays. But to get costs down to, say, Canadian levels, we’d need to do what they do: say no to patients, telling them that they can’t always have the treatment they want.Saying no has two cost-saving effects: it saves money directly, and it also greatly enhances the government’s bargaining power, because it can say, for example, to drug producers that if they charge too much they won’t be in the formulary.But it’s not something most Americans want to hear about; foreign single-payer systems are actually more like Medicaid than they are like Medicare.And Sanders isn’t coming clean on that — he’s promising Medicaid-like costs while also promising no rationing. The reason, of course, is that being realistic either about the costs or about what the system would really be like would make it a political loser. But that’s the point: single-payer just isn’t a political possibility starting from here. It’s just a distraction from the real issues.Health Reform Is HardHospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment193,000 NHS patients a month waiting beyond target time for surgeryhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/hip-knee-surgery-waiting-lists-lengthen-nhs-focus-ae-cancer/Hip and knee surgery waiting lists to lengthen as NHS focus on A&E and cancer careNHS Health Check: Hospital op 'long waiters' rise by 163% - BBC NewsCanada lags G7 in cost-saving IR proceduresHealthcare wait times hit 20 weeks in 2016: reportWaiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2015 ReportCanadians increasingly come to US for healthcare: https://www.usnews.com/news/best...

I think I have a somewhat unique perspective on this. I am originally from London and lived in the UK for 42 years. I have lived in the US for over 10 years and I am a Health Insurance Agent. The US has some wonderful hospitals and doctors. Without any doubt if you are wealthy or have good insurance you can receive some of the best healthcare anywhere in the world. However.You could lose your health insurance for just being sick. Yep that’s right. You are working and get seriously ill. You do not get statutory sick pay. So your employer may just replace you and drop you from your health insurance. There is a provision called COBRA that allows you to keep the insurance as long as you pay both your portion as well as the employers portion, oh and a couple of % for admin. What Bollocks! You're ill, you're fired and to add insult to injury you are charged more. This sounds like a fairy story. A one in a million chance. Nope, it happens all the time.In the 42 years I was in the UK. I broke a pelvis, broken arm. 4-inch cut wrist. Cutting tendons and artery in arm. Operation on throat. All that was before I was 12. Add to that doctors visits a serious traffic accident, helicopter evac with blood transfusion. I would say that I have come in contact with the NHS.I have seen both countries’ systems close up. I would gladly choose another profession and have the NHS in the US. Shocking, right? Well not really, you see the 42 years I spent in the UK made me understand that if we are all covered by health insurance it makes it cheaper and far better for everyone including me.The main reasons Americans cannot seem to wrap their head around it are: ignorance, political bias and stupidity. Also the total belief that if it is not done in USA it can’t be any good. You do not realize how good the NHS is until you no longer have it. Rule Britannia!

My first encounter with a very young mother to be, was a TEN year old little girl. She had her mother with her, who was very supportive as was the mom's boyfriend.It was not my place to inquire who and where the baby daddy was, so I admitted this frightened ten year old girl, who was oblivious to what was going on with her body. In her chart it was noted by the Obstetrician that the father of the baby was “Unknown, possibly one of the 10 year old girls boyfriends.”Her mother all the while was smiling ear to ear, calling her friends to let them know that “her baby” was going to be born that night.The little girl had a relatively easy delivery, with mother and mothers boyfriend present in the delivery room. I carted her off to post partum, handing her care over to my coworker.She was discharged without complications and the new Grandma was fully supportive and caring for both her daughter and granddaughter.I had forgotten about this young mother until I found her in my labor unit almost exactly one year later and in active labor.Once again the now 11 year olds mother and mothers boyfriend are present, supportive, and both in the delivery room witnessing this miracle known as child giving birth to a child, again.All goes well with the rapid, uneventful delivery. As I was leaving from my night shift, I peeked my head in to say Aloha and to inquire about how the now one year old baby girl was doing.The eleven year old mother said her daughter “Abcde” is doing great.Yes, that's what I wrote, Abcde. The ten year old mother named her first born daughter, Abcde. Pronounced Ab-Sa-Dee.After composing myself I asked if she had names picked out for this newborn daughter.Of course she did! She stated that she really didn't come up with the name! It came from the nursery nurse who brought the baby to her in the bassinet, with the pretty pink card that said her name is Female!That's right ladies and gentlemen! Baby girl number two was named Female. Pronounced exactly how you would normally pronounce it.This happened over thirty years ago. We nurses tried to get the mom and grandma to think of better names, but they could not be swayed.I occasionally see Abcde on social media. I do not know what has become of Female.As an interesting side note, this ten year old mother was impregnated by the mother's boyfriend. Impregnated with mother's boyfriends sperm via turkey baster.Why, you might ask? Because “Grandma” had her tubes tied and now had a much younger boyfriend and both wanted children that were “theirs”. I cannot make this crap up.Child Protective Services became involved only after the birth of the second girl. They did not want to remove all three children (mother and her two babies) to foster care. All three were thriving and the ten year old mom doing well in school. The grandmother was initially arrested and put on some sort of probation. The literal sperm donor was not charged with anything. I do not know the status of them.So there that's my story of the sad but true, laughable names a parent gave to their newborns.

Small anecdote.When I worked in USA, I fell and broke my jaw. I could not go straight to the ER because I was leading an expedition along part of the AT.I went to the ER when I got back, I presented them with my insurance card, and they took x rays, and provided care.Then, I found out that my insurance would not cover this, because my injury was one covered by “workers comp” which is when your employer is liable for the cost of medical treatment based on their insurance for employees injuries at work.THEN I found out that I couldn’t claim on workers comp because you have to report the incident within 12 hrs. Which is not possible if you are trekking through wilderness with no means of communicating (this was pre mobile phones)After a YEAR of discussion and disagreement, I wound up having to pay for the treatment myself. Out of pocket. Despite having several million dollars worth of cover on my insurance. Despite not having done anything negligent.Several years later, I had occasion to claim on my medical insurance in the USA again. Again, I presented my insurance card, and received treatment. AGAIN I ended up having to have extended discussions with my insurer, who, in this instance EVENTUALLY covered the expense.When I am in the UK, however, I simply arrive at a hospital, get treatment, and go home, safe in the knowledge that, unless I need further treatment, which I also won’t have to worry about the cost of, I need never worry about it again.I mean, OK the staff in USA were usually NICER to me (NOT always, I have received some amazingly kind and warm care in UK, even just as the visitor of a patient), but, the statistical outcomes in USA are actually worse, the faff to get anything covered even if you ARE insured, and the fact that unless you can afford health care in the USA you are deemed not to deserve any, means that no, I would much rather the UK system.

Complete an accredited registered nurse program. In order to become a registered nurse, students must graduate from an accredited program. ... Take and pass the NCLEX-RN examination. ... Obtain a state license. ... Obtain employment as a registered nurse. ... Pursue additional training or education.

Two states, Kansas and Louisiana, will join the ENAC on July 1, 2019. Nurses in these states will be contacted by their respective state board of nursing regarding the new compact license. Here's a comprehensive listing of all states currently impacted by multi-state compact licensing.

The good news: The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (ISBN) developed the Nursing Licensure Compact (NFC), which is an agreement between states that allows nurses to have one license and the ability to practice in all the states that participate in the program.

*ENAC states include: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

If your license is in good standing, you just apply for licensure by endorsement from your new state board of nursing. You have 30 days after you establish residency and become employed. The ISBN notes, \u201cBecause the state's licensure by endorsement process may take more than 30 days, it is suggested you apply early.\u201d.