hypocaffeinemia

healthcare policy

The subtle difference between test anxiety and test stupidity

by Matt on Sep.08, 2008 at 08:44 CDT, under education, healthcare policy, nursing

Those of you that know me know that I’m a big advocate for increasing the professionalism in our…erm… profession. That’s why I’m a bit bothered to report that many states have no limit on the amount of times one is allowed to sit for the NCLEX exam- the national test required to obtain a nursing license.

Additionally, if you search around the net you will find many supporting those taking the test for their 6th, 7th, and even 8th time! That’s insanity!

The most common excuse given is that the repeat fail-er suffers from “test anxiety”. Test anxiety is a very real problem some people have, but the term is quite frankly overused and appears to be claimed by anybody who does poorly on a test, regardless of actual affect from their anxiety.

Further, while test anxiety may apply the first or even the second time you must take a weirdly formatted test at a distant and unknown testing center, by the 5th time around you should be a pro at it.

The NCLEX is necessary to ensure that licensed and registered nurses are minimally competent at what they are doing- this is a good thing for our patients and our profession. At what point do we stop encouraging the guy that’s failed it 7 times already to try again in the hopes that he might squeak by and start protecting our profession by encouraging somebody unable to pass to repeat a nursing program or seek out a different line of work?


Would anybody in their right mind go to a doctor who barely passed the USMLE exams only after a half-dozen attempts?

9 Comments more...

The Paradox of the Right

by Matt on Sep.06, 2008 at 07:58 CDT, under healthcare policy, politics

Why is it that the same people who are most vocally pro-life are also the same people who oppose decent sex education and access to birth control? I can’t wrap my mind around this clearly contradictory point of view.

I’m not a big fan of abortion myself, but then I suspect most people aren’t– even the pro-choice crowd. I would argue that there is an extremely limited time and place for it and having competent practitioners at least keeps those that would do it regardless from dying of septicemia or other amateur complications, but I think most rational people are in favor of doing what we can to reduce the abortion rate.

Which is why the right’s stance makes absolutely no sense at all: They may state they are admantly against abortion, but their views on birth control and sex education increase the pregnancy rate. It’s not hard to extrapolate that more pregnancies equals more abortions.

 

Click to continue reading “The Paradox of the Right”

2 Comments more...

EMTALA = Insurance?

by Matt on Aug.28, 2008 at 19:23 CDT, under healthcare policy, politics

From CNN, an adviser to Senator McCain just released this piece of absolute lunacy:

“The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured.”

The reason, he contends, no one should be labeled “uninsured” is because everyone has the right to a medical exam and stabilizing treatment under EMTALA.

Emergency rooms are emergency rooms, people! Despite the fact ERs routinely see all sorts of non-emergent cases, they are not properly equipped or staffed to deliver high-quality care for non-emergencies. Instead, what happens is patients without insurance can’t receive the treatment they need to maintain relatively stable medical situations, and instead wait until it becomes an emergency situation.

Even if we ignore the ethical argument, you have to be economically daft not to realize that simply telling everybody to go to the ER when their uncontrolled diabetes leads into renal failure or their unmonitored hypertension strokes them out isn’t cost-effective in any way, shape, or form for the taxpayers.

1 Comment more...

“Help me, I’m being discriminated against!”

by Matt on Aug.23, 2008 at 14:25 CDT, under healthcare policy

The US Department of Health and Human Services recently proposed a new piece of regulation designed to protect healthcare workers from discrimination based on their conscience. It’s absolute bullhockey:

“This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. “Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree.”

You’re right, Secretary Leavitt. Healthcare workers should not have to choose between violating their conscience and good professional standing. They should choose between violating their conscience and giving up their license to practice! More on this after the jump.

Click to continue reading ““Help me, I’m being discriminated against!””

Leave a Comment more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!