Download NPTE PDF Download free enjoy your success

If you need to pass Medical NPTE exam, has produced Medical National Physical Therapy Examination bootcamp questions database that will guarantee a person pass NPTE exam! provides a person the valid, Most recent, and 2022 up-to-date NPTE brain dumps questions and provided a totally Guarantee.

Exam Code: NPTE Practice test 2022 by team
NPTE National Physical Therapy Examination

The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) administers the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE), the examination that every graduate of a physical therapy or physical therapist assistant education program must pass to become a licensed physical therapist or licensed/certified physical therapist assistant (or to regain licensure/certification if lapsed) in the United States (US). Foreign-educated candidates who wish to become licensed in the US must also take and pass this examination.

The NPTE is a computer-administered examination. The physical therapist licensure examination has five sections each with 50 questions. Of the 250 multiple choice questions, only 200 are scored. The other 50 questions are being pretested to see if they meet the standards to be included in future exams. The physical therapist assistant licensure examination has four sections with a total of 200 multiple choice questions. As in the physical therapist examination, 50 of these questions are being pre-tested and are not scored.

The scoring ranges from 200-800. The minimum passing score is 600 for both the PT and PTA exam.

Testing is administered at Prometric Testing Centers. Candidates are not required to test in the jurisdiction for which they are applying for licensure.

National Physical Therapy Examination
Medical Examination mock
Killexams : Medical Examination mock - BingNews Search results Killexams : Medical Examination mock - BingNews Killexams : KEA Announces Mock Allotment Results For NEET PG Admissions

Karnataka: Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) released the PGET 2022 Medical/Dental/DNB mock seat allotment result for 2022-23.

To check the results, the candidates need to click on the link

The results are announced after the 1st round of the counselling schedule.

A total of 3087 seats were allocated for PG Medical and PG Dental admissions. PG Medical had 2146 seats, and PG Dental had 941 seats allotted.

The last date for the document verification process was on 6th October 2022. The candidates who have registered and applied online for PGET-2022 but did not complete the process of verification of documents on the scheduled dates were asked to appear for verification of documents. The candidates who have scored more than or equal to the prescribed minimum score in NEET PG 2022 / NEET MDS-2022 and who could not register online were also asked to come for the verification on the same day. For such candidates, registration and verification of documents were done simultaneously.

The merit list was released based on registration, NEET PG rank, state domicile, reservation, and other criteria. The candidates whose names were on the merit list were only allowed to participate in the counselling process. The counselling process will have 3 rounds, i.e. round 1, round 2, and the mop-up round. The mop-up round will only be conducted if any seats are vacant after round 2.

Eligibility criteria –

1. The candidates must have qualified for NEET PG/NEET MDS 2022

2. The candidates must possess an MBBS/BDS degree from an institute recognised by MCI/DCI

3. The candidates must have completed their compulsory rotatory internship by 31st April 2022

Karnataka Examinations Authority is governed by the Governing Council headed by the Honourable Minister of Higher Education. The Government of Karnataka established Common Entrance Test Cell in the year 1994 for conducting entrance tests and determining the eligibility/merit for admission to the first year or first semester of full-time professional courses for Government share of seats in Medical, Dental, Indian systems of medicine and Homeopathy, Engineering / Architecture Courses, BSc (Agriculture), BSc (Sericulture), BSc (Horticulture), BSc (Forestry), BSc Agri Bio Tech, BHSc (Home Science), BTech (Agri. Engg), BTech (Food Technology), BTech (Dairy Tech), BFSc (Fisheries), BTech (Food Science & Tech), BSc (Agri. Marketing & Co-Op), B-Pharma, Pharma-D Courses.

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:30:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : Managing rapid changes in medical field Killexams : Managing rapid changes in medical field Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:32:00 -0500 en text/html Killexams : KCET mock seat allotment result out for Medical/ Dental courses

The Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) has released the KCET 2022 round 1 mock seat allotment result for medical and dental courses. Students can check their KCET mock allotment at the official website

Candidates can make changes in their options from October 12 to October 14. Based on this, the KCET round 1 seat allotment result will be released on October 15.

To check KCET mock allotment, candidates will need to enter their PGET number.

Steps to check KCET mock allotment result:

  1. Visit the official website
  2. Go to ‘PGET 2022 Medical/Dental/DNB mock allotment result’
  3. Enter PGET NO and submit
  4. The KCET mock seat allotment result will appear on screen
  5. Download and check.

Here’s direct link to KCET mock allotment 2022.

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 22:01:00 -0500 Scroll Staff en text/html
Killexams : KCET Counselling 2022: Mock allotment result for Round 1 released, direct link
KCET Counselling 2022: Mock allotment result for Round 1 released, direct link

Representational image. AFP

The Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) has issued the PGET-2022 Medical/Dental/DNB MOCK Round Allotment result. Candidates who applied for the KCET Counselling can check and download the Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result from the official website of KEA – Originally, it was supposed to be released on 13 October but the Karnataka Examinations Authority released it a day early (12 October). Candidates should note that the Karnataka PGET 2022 mock allotment result will comprise the details of the candidate along with the college and course allotted as per their eligibility. To check the Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result, candidates will have to enter their login credentials in the link provided on the website.

“Documents of the candidates who have attended verification in KEA on 07-10-2022, 08-10-2022, and 11-10-2022 are under verification. Shall be announced on 14-10-2022,” reads a notice on the website. Those candidates who failed to submit their certificates which needed to be signed by the concerned Block Education Officer (BEO) of the Kannada Medium Study, their candidature has been cancelled.

Check simple steps to download KCET 2022 mock allotment result:

Step 1: Visit the official site at

Step 2: On the ‘latest announcement’ section, look for the link reading -“12-10 PGET 2022 Medical/Dental/DNB mock allotment result” and click on it.

Step 3: Candidates need to enter the PGET number and hit the submit button on the new page.

Step 4: The KCET 2022 mock allotment result will be displayed on the screen.

Step 5: Check and go through the mock allotment result.

Step 6: Save and download the same for future purposes.

Direct link to check KCET 2022 Mock Allotment.

With the release of the mock seat allotment result for medical and dental courses, candidates can now change their programme options (if required). The options window for the same will open today (13 October) and will close on 15 October. Following this, the Seat Allotment of Round 1 will be released on 17 October 2022. Candidates are advised to make the necessary changes before the deadline ends.

For more updates and details, students must keep checking the official website on a regular basis.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 19:06:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : KCET Counseling 2022 Round 1: Mock allotment list for PG NEET released at, check how to download The candidates can fill up their preferred college and course in the MHT CET option entry process. (File/IE) © Provided by The Financial Express The candidates can fill up their preferred college and course in the MHT CET option entry process. (File/IE)

KCET Counseling 2022 Round 1 Mock Allotment list: Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) has released the round 1 mock allotment list for PGET-2022 Medical/Dental/DNB on its website. Candidates who appeared in the PGET-2022 Medical/Dental/DNB mock round 1 can download the counselling list from the official website of KCET – 

The Karnataka PGET 2022 mock allotment result contains the details of the candidate along with college and course allotted to them as per eligibility criteria. The candidates can follow the easy steps given below to download Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result. 

Also Read| DU Admissions 2022: Last date to register extended, Phase 3 schedule released on

 Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result – how to download

  • Visit the official website of KCET –
  • Candidates are required to click on the notification link that reads ‘ Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result’ flashing on the homepage
  • It will redirect you to the new page
  • Enter your PGET No. and click on the submit button 
  • The Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result will be displayed on the screen 
  • Download Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result and save it for future reference 

Direct link to download PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result

Also Read| Goa board releases datesheet for Class 10 and 12 Term 1 exams – check details at

It should be noted that the candidates also have the facility to make changes in the options entered during the choice-filling process which will be available until October 14. The candidates can directly download Karnataka PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Result by clicking on the above link and save their result for future reference. The final list of allotments will be available on October 15. 

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:52:12 -0500 en-IN text/html
Killexams : KCET Counseling 2022 Round 1 Mock Allotment Result Out at

The Karnataka PGET 2022 mock allotment result link will be available on the official website of the Karnataka Examination Authority. Here are the steps you need to follow:

  1. Visit the official website of Karnataka PGET 2022 at

  2. On the homepage, click on the PGET 2022 Mock Allotment Link

  3. You will have to enter the PGET Number in the link available and click on submit

  4. The Karnataka PGET 2022 allotment result will appear on your screen.

  5. You can save and download the PGET Mock allotment result for further reference

After the release of the mock seat allotment result 2022, candidates will be able to make changes in the options they entered during the choice-filling process. The choice-filling window will be open till 14 October 2022. 

The final counselling allotment list for Round 1 will be out on 15 October 2022.

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 22:44:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : When it comes to medical cannabis, Dr. Melanie Johnson wants to 'translate doctor into human'

ZUMBRO FALLS — As you drive along U.S. Highway 63 through Zumbro Falls, population 207, you may notice a green house just beyond the town's Hometown Heroes Memorial. That's home to The Green Clinic, Dr. Melanie Johnson's private practice that specializes in certifying medical cannabis patients.

Johnson, a Mayo Clinic-educated family medicine physician, has been practicing medicine since 2001 and spent the bulk of her career at Olmsted Medical Center in Rochester. She pivoted to medical cannabis certification after her oldest son was prescribed cannabis in 2019. Now, Johnson prescribes medical cannabis and helps her patients understand their treatment options and their legal protections.

What got you into your medical cannabis practice?

So, I’m a family medicine doctor — that was my training, and I really enjoyed practicing full-spectrum primary care at Mayo and Olmsted. Then my oldest son actually has Tourettes and seizures. He didn’t do very well on synthetics, so I had to learn about medical cannabis because that was another option. Once I started looking into the science and the medicine of it, it was very clear that it was a good option for him and lots of other people that I treated. So, I set about trying to make medical cannabis accessible and easy and affordable for people so that people like my son could get the medical care they needed.

How did cannabis help your son?

For him, it was a life changer. We went from talking about maybe preparing for a group home to graduating with all A's and no IEP. And then, he graduated with honors from college and is in his dream job. It made a huge difference for our family, but it was really hard to find, and I wanted it to be easy for other moms and patients to get a reliable source of cannabis information and a reliable way to be certified.

What does your work entail on the day-to-day with patients?

My job is that I need to evaluate whether their health history has any medical conditions that could be exacerbated by medical cannabis and make sure they’re a good candidate. Then, I do a physical exam, and the majority of the hourlong consult is actually me teaching them about how to manipulate medical cannabis, the options they have, their legal protections and how they would adjust it based on what they’re experiencing.

My passion is really educating people about it so that they feel comfortable and confident in the medication and can use it without being worried they’re going to be fired or being worried that it’s addictive because neither of those are the case.

You worked in Rochester for several years before opening up The Green Clinic in Zumbro Falls. Why there?

It’s a charming small-town feel. All the community is so welcoming, and it’s only 20 minutes outside of Rochester. The parking is free and easy.

What are some common questions that people — either your patients or just members of the public — ask you about the state medical cannabis program?

A lot of people ask me if they’ll get fired. There’s a specific law, the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Research Act, and it states that you cannot impact anyone’s medical care or their employment based on their need or use of medical cannabis. So, we actually have a lot of protection in Minnesota for medical cannabis patients.

The second most common would be, “I don’t want to be sedated. Can you make it so that I’m not sedated?” Part of the education process is learning how to control that sedation that people typically assume from cannabis.

How do people qualify for Minnesota’s medical cannabis program?

You have to be a Minnesota resident and be able to prove it, and then you have to have one of the qualifying conditions. The two most common qualifying conditions for the program, taken as a whole, in Minnesota are pain and PTSD. And any pain is enough — it’s actually modeled after Colorado’s medical program because it was so successful.

So, if you break your leg and it hurts 90 days later, that qualifies. Your knee (injury) from high school that hurts when it rains qualifies. Your headaches qualify. Chronic pain is anything greater than 90 days, and it doesn’t have to be continuous — one of the most common things it’s used for in medical programs across the first world are migraines.

Our goal is to make it comfortable and accessible, and if you explain things to people, how it works, it’s really an easy medication to work with. It just takes some explaining, so that’s what I love to do.

What’s one of your favorite parts about having your own practice?

One of the nicest things about having my own clinic is that it’s totally private. My electronic medical record doesn’t connect to anybody’s, so unless you choose to disclose it to your employer or to your other medical providers, it doesn’t show up there. That makes a lot of people feel more comfortable.

What do you like to do outside of work?

Garden, ride my horses and play with my kids. That pretty much sums it up.

Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:41:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : IP Practice Vlogs: Responding to the USPTO’s Request for Public Comments

“What the USPTO should really do is try to implement examination procedure to better standardize the practice of patent claiming and examination in order to induce consistency in the patent system.”

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would like public comments on how to update the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The agency is also seeking comments on how to Strengthen the robustness of the patent system overall. This article/video is in (unofficial) response to both of these requests for comments.

The current mess surrounding subject matter eligibility in the United States is an offspring of a much deeper problem in patent law, which is that there is practically no standardization in patent practice. In medicine, U.S. doctors are trained by standardized practices through rotations and residency programs such that when they begin practicing, a doctor graduating in Florida will not practice medicine vastly different from a doctor graduating from medical school in California, for instance. Instead, the idea is that all the graduates will approach medical treatment in a standardized way so that the public has a lot more faith in the medical community.

Law is simply not like that. Different attorneys can claim the same invention in a myriad of different ways. Different examiners can search and apply the prior art to the same claims in a myriad of ways. So, as a result, courts can interpret cases with roughly the same issues in vastly different ways. One of the questions we keep asking ourselves is, “Why does the Federal Circuit constantly issue inconsistent rulings?” I think the answer may be that it’s just so easy. The factfinder can actually assess the same facts in quite a few different ways because of the lack of standardized practices in patent law.

This “problem” actually occurs in all types of law practice (lawyering is not exactly a standardized profession). But the problem with patent law is that the public, rightfully and understandably so, assumes that a patent issued from the USPTO would be of a consistent quality and standard. Unfortunately, they have not been getting that.

What should the USPTO do in terms of updating the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance? Well, I’m sure you remember what happened with the 2019 Guidance is that it’s not binding outside of the agency, so unfortunately, the principles of the Guidance were not followed.

COMMENT 1 – Do not attempt to fix 101 by actually trying to fix 101. Instead, standardize.

It won’t go anywhere – you are bound by too much judicial precedent at this point. What you should really do is try to implement examination procedure to better standardize the practice of patent claiming and examination in order to induce consistency in the patent system.

Standardizing Claim Construction

The agency should standardize the practice of how to determine what the invention is “directed to” (i.e., Step 2A of the Alice test) because people are all over the place with this issue. The question of what the invention is directed to should be based primarily on the preamble of the claim. But right now, there is way too much latitude when it comes to this test. The USPTO specifying clearer standards that are grounded in genuine claim language (rather than purely at the examiners’ discretion) will not only induce clearer examination, but also better patent claiming by the applicants.

Back in 2019, the Federal Circuit found that a garage door opener was an abstract idea in Chamberlain v. One World Technologies.  The Chamberlain decision seemingly followed the Berkheimer test by assessing “directed to” in Step 2A and then looking for a technical improvement in Step 2B. (If there is a technical improvement to what the invention is directed to, then we have more than an abstract idea).

The invention at issue in this case was really directed to a garage door opener. More specifically, it was directed to a garage door opener equipped with a wireless communicator. That’s actually what the claims said – the applicant had an apparatus claim and a method claim, and the apparatus claim actually claimed a “movable barrier operator.”

Instead, the Federal Circuit found that in Step 2A, the claims were directed to just the wireless communicator! And since the patentee only disclosed a conventional wireless communicator, then there was no technical improvement.

One thing about the patent at issue in Chamberlain that made it susceptible to a Section 101 ruling is that the patentee did not show any physical structure or article of manufacture that is equipped with the wireless communicator. Instead, they only showed generic boxes marked with “movable barrier” etc. They really should have shown a garage door or at least one of those remote controls equipped with the wireless communicator. But I don’t want to be too hard on this applicant – these comments are provided with a lot of hindsight bias – plus the patentee’s application was also filed in 2003. Alice came out in 2014. There is no way that the applicant foresaw at the time of filing that their claims would actually be determined to be directed to an abstract idea! But now, knowing the state of the law, you should be showing the physical article equipped with the software always because you want to avoid that impression of abstractness. Also, because you can’t claim what you don’t show in the figures, and black boxes are just not good enough, if you want to cover a garage door operator, you should show the operator.

But, back to the USPTO, they should really come up with some rules as to how “directed to” is determined and those rules need to be grounded in claim language and based on what is positively claimed.

Standardizing Software Claim Examination

“Hey will our functional language get patentable weight?”

“I don’t know, depends on the examiner we get.”

USPTO, can you please tell your examiners that if an applicant recites a computer structure that is “programmed” to execute a series of steps, those steps get patentable weight? Stop making it such a guessing game, it creates inconsistent examination and therefore inconsistent patent quality.

Standardizing Mechanical Claim Examination

Means-plus-function interpretation (based on 35 USC §112(f)) is invoked when the applicant claims a means in combination with a nonce word. Examples of nonce words (words that don’t mean anything, kind of like space fillers) include “unit”, “module”, “member”, “structure”, etc. In this case, the claim term gets the claimed structure disclosed in the application and the structural equivalents thereof. For example, applicant claims a “fastening means” and discloses and describes a nail, for example. Under a means-plus-function interpretation, “fastening means” will be interpreted to probably also cover a screw or a bolt as structural equivalents. “Fastening means” will not be interpreted to cover tape or glue because those structures cannot be considered equivalent to a nail.

The primary reason an applicant might want a means-plus-function interpretation occurs when showing a series of embodiments for “fastening means” and the applicant wants to cover all those embodiments with a generic claim. But showing all the different types of equivalent structures in the disclosure is necessary.

If you get a means-plus-function interpretation and the examiner finds that you have not shown sufficient structure for the means, your claim is indefinite. A means-plus-function interpretation greatly enhance the chances of an indefiniteness rejection. The irritating thing is that means-plus-function can be invoked post-grant/post-issuance to render an issued patent invalid for indefiniteness when it was not deemed indefinite at any point during prosecution.

Here’s my comment: unless the claim explicitly recites “means,” means-plus-function should not even be a consideration. This should just be codified.

Diebold v. ITC is about an ATM machine issued in 2018 in which the Federal Circuit reversed an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision, the court finding that the patentee violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act on the grounds that the asserted patent was invalid for indefiniteness. In particular, the court found that the claim term “cheque standby unit” was a means-plus-function term and that the specification failed to provide sufficient supporting structure. “Unit” is the nonce word here and “cheque standby” is a function so the combination invoked a means-plus-function interpretation at appeal where the claim was deemed to be indefinite. The court found that the term “cheque standby unit” was depicted by only by a box in the Figures and the patentee didn’t show any structure for it.

I found the merits of this decision to be deeply flawed because the point of finding a patent invalid for indefiniteness is that it fails to put to competitors on fair notice of the scope of a patent. But the defendant’s ATM had this cheque standby unit, whatever it was, a place to hold checks temporarily.  They had this.  On top of it all, this was a case of direct infringement in which the products were essentially identical. Why is the claim indefinite now?

The agency should codify that means-plus-function gets invoked only when the applicant specifically uses “means” and is asking for the structural equivalents thereof.

Standardizing Process Claims Examination

Product-by-process claims occur when the applicant invents a new process, but they don’t only want to cover the process by itself because in that case they can only sue the company that makes the product for direct infringement. You want to also cover the product because you want to sue the sellers of the product that is being made by the new process. (You gotta be inclusive about who you sue, ok—don’t leave anybody out).

The problem with examination of product-by-process claims is that determination of patentability is based on the inventiveness of the product, not the claimed process – the process does not get patentable weight. If the product is the same as the prior art, the claim is not novel or obvious. This is a judge-made law and it’s stupid. If the applicant claimed a process, then examine the process.

Also, examiners are all over the place on what they consider to be the same product. They consider a two-piece product the same as a one-piece product; they consider products that are molded together to be the same as products that are welded together; products that are collapsible to be the same as rigid products if they look the same.

These are not the same products! The agency should set some clear limits as to what is considered a same product.

The agency should also direct its examiners to examine the patentability of product-by-process claims based on the patentability of the product and the process, not just the product by itself. Examination based on the novelty of the product alone endangers innovations to manufacturing techniques.

COMMENT 2 – Institute a special examination procedure for AI. 

The combination of a first to file system and the need to deploy machine learning modules in a public use or commercialization setting has created a race to the Patent Office. They are going to be deluged with these applications that are susceptible to unresolved law, which will be examined in all sorts of ways and then the public is going to freak out that the USPTO is issuing patents that are too broad or unenforceable. The Office needs to create an art unit just for the examination of AI so that examination will be consistent for this field of technology. (Have they already?? Please comment).

When it comes to updating the 2019 Guidance with AI in mind, we need to ask whether the AI is directed to foundational (or core) AI versus just applied AI, which is AI as applied to a particular system or process.  Foundational AI is directed to a model trained or for training on a vast quantity of unlabeled data at scale and the resulting model can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks. The patentability of foundational AI is much more instrumental towards inducing capital investment in a particular industry and is an enabling tech, whereas AI as simply applied to a particular process without further training may unduly restrict competition. (Speaking generally here, by the way, it’s not always the case).

The problem is that a lot of applications actually disclose both – they disclose a method of training a large data processing model and they also disclose the application of that model in a particular setting because these components are oftentimes developed together. As a result, the problem with AI applications is both intrinsic and extrinsic in nature with respect to the current patent law.

The intrinsic problem is that foundational AI, being directed to big data labeling and processing, will unfortunately sounds a bit like mental processes, like the applicant is claiming a super brain. So, foundational AI is much more susceptible to a Section 101 abstract idea rejection. Applied AI will more likely involve an genuine machine or apparatus, which places applied AI claims in better condition to circumvent the 101 issue.

The extrinsic problem stems from applicants’ own incentives. The applicant is incentivized to claim the application of the AI rather than the building of the AI itself, because you claim what you make, use and sell. The applicant is more likely to capture parties who use or implement the AI versus parties actually training a whole new AI based on the same principles disclosed in their application. The claim to the applied AI is probably a broader claim (again, speaking generally). Therefore, the problem with U.S. law is that the patent system does not ensure protection of AI, and to the degree that it does, the system promotes the protection of applied AI, but not so much the protection of core AI, which is actually where more inventiveness occurs.

So, what should we do about this? It’s a tough one. The agency should not disrupt the ability of applicants to claim in their best interests – that would disrupt the foundations of claiming practice and the entire system. But to start with, examiners should probably look to the integration of the large data processes with the application of the model in the claim. The claim should have both and should be examined based on both aspects. The current 101 Guidance actually provides a lot of concrete examples as to how to assess the integration of data processes with its application when it comes to examination. Maybe the best thing for the agency to do is to just follow through and enforce the Guidance internally and consistently, despite whatever the Federal Circuit says.

These comments will be submitted for the “Request for Comments on USPTO Initiatives to Ensure the Robustness and Reliability of Patent Rights.”

To hear more, check out the latest episode of IP Practice Vlogs

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 08:15:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : KCET Counseling 2022 first round mock allotment released on, direct link kcet counseling 2022 first round mock allotment released on, direct link © Provided by Times Now kcet counseling 2022 first round mock allotment released on, direct link

Karnataka Examinations Authority, KEA has released the mock seat allotment result on Originally it was scheduled to be out on October 13 but KEA released it on October 12, 2022. The KCET counselling is underway and candidates were told to get their documents Verified by October 11, 2022. Earlier the deadline for document verification was October 8 which was then extended to October 11. Steps and direct link to check mock allotment are mentioned here.

Direct link to check KCET 2022 Mock Allotment

Since the mock seat allotment for medical and dental courses is out, candidates can change their options. The window will be opened today and will be closed on October 15, 2022. Post considering the objections changed by students, Seat Allotment of Round 1 will be out on October 17, 2022. Even though the deadline to edit options will end on October 15, candidates are advised to do the necessary changes well before deadline to avoid last minute rush. The official schedule can be checked on the official website,

Steps to check KCET 2022 mock allotment result

  1. Go to the official website
  2. On the homepage, look for the latest announcement
  3. Click on link which reads, “12-10 PGET 2022 Medical/Dental/DNB mock allotment result”
  4. After being redirected to another page, enter PGET number and click on submit
  5. The result will be displayed on screen
  6. Go through it and download the same
If any candidate has failed to submit the validity study certificate, Kannada Medium Study certificate counter signed by the concerned BEO and other original certificates, this/her candidature will be cancelled. For more details, candidates can go to the official website.
Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:01:11 -0500 en-IN text/html
Killexams : Harper College, Rush University Medical Center partner for Medical Assistant Apprenticeship Program

Rush University Medical Center was looking to innovate. Harper College was ready to collaborate.

The two organizations recently partnered on the Medical Assistant Apprenticeship Program, which began with the fall semester. A 22-member cohort will receive Harper instruction while gaining on-the-job experience at Rush's medical facilities during a period of 18 months. Rush is covering all educational costs (tuition, fees and books) while paying apprentices' salaries.

At the program's end, apprentices will be eligible to take the Certified Medical Assistant test and begin their full-fledged employment with the Chicago-based system of hospitals and health care facilities.

Apprenticeships are relatively new to the health care sector, with only a handful of apprenticeship programs for medical assistants offered nationwide. Leaders at Rush and Harper were eager to look beyond traditional pipelines for hiring medical personnel. Like most health care organizations, Rush has been experiencing staffing shortages exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Our numbers were significantly lower," said Molly Moran, director of Ambulatory Clinical Practice at Rush. "The number one barrier to completion of certification was an inability to work and go to school simultaneously. Many potential staff were supporting their families and were forced to stop their studies before completion."

To remove that barrier, leaders at Rush pursued an apprenticeship program that would create a functional balance between work and training. They reached out to Harper because of the college's reputation for health care education and partnering with local industries.

"We're well-known for quality in health careers," said Kathleen Canfield, senior director of Job Placement and Workforce Solutions. "The number of our graduates who pass state exams is extremely high."

Moran concurred: "Harper had apprenticeship expertise combined with a strong Certified Medical Assistant program. It was easy to see how the two would meld together."

Those facets combined well according to Canfield and Moran, who also praised the collaboration between stakeholders at Harper and Rush. Members of both organizations began meeting regularly in February, working on a "punch list" of tasks to ensure success.

When it came time to announce the program to applicants in the spring, everyone felt that the apprenticeships would be attractive ("Who doesn't like free?" chuckled Moran), but both Canfield and Moran were blown away by the volume. More than 3,000 individuals applied to join the program.


"The response was overwhelming," Moran said. "And it went against what others were telling us about a lack of interest [in health careers]. The response validated our approach. It proved that we needed to adapt."

Canfield highlighted the work of Harper's Admissions Outreach team in processing thousands of applications while maintaining lines of communication between everyone involved, enabling a final cohort of enthusiastic apprentices.

"It's important because this will truly fill a need for Rush," Canfield said. "What employer is going to be able to hire 22 people, not to mention 22 highly trained medical assistants, in one go?"

Those soon-to-be medical assistants will be critical for Rush, according to Moran, who described the variety of duties involved for these patient-facing roles: checking in patients, instructing them about medication and ways of care, administering medication, implementing plans of care and more.

Along the way, the apprentices will work at one of four Rush locations: Oak Park, Oak Brook, in Chicago's South Loop and Rush University Medical Center on the West Side. The majority of their Harper courses will be online, although a couple will be in person due to the necessity of hands-on learning. Rush will provide a free shuttle for apprentices to Harper's Palatine campus and back to its medical center.

That's not the only way Harper and Rush are supporting the cohort. For example, each apprentice will be designated an apprenticeship coach at Harper to help them navigate everything involving their studies, online or on campus. Meanwhile, working at Rush will demonstrate the scope of their roles.

"Health care is changing so rapidly. By working in some capacity in the role they will be in after they graduate, they can immediately apply what they learn in the curriculum," Moran said. "There will be less of that theory-to-practice gap. They will have exposure to multiple different clinics and types of clinics."

In exchange for participating in the program, the apprentices agree to work for Rush for one year after completion of the 18-month program. Not only will all apprentices have a guaranteed job in their field, they can also stack their courses into an Associate in Applied Science degree, just like traditional Certified Medical Assistant graduates.

Although the Medical Assistant Apprentice Program has only just begun, Rush and Harper are discussing future plans.

"We've already begun talking about cohort number two," Moran said. "We want this to be sustainable and meaningful. This speaks to Rush's mission and vision as well as Harper's mission and vision to meet the needs of the community."

Canfield called Rush one of Harper's best partners and said she was excited about what the future may hold.

"We want employers to look at Harper as their preferred provider. We always want to work with them," Canfield said. "What we can provide - it's a long list."

Mon, 10 Oct 2022 02:29:00 -0500 en-US text/html
NPTE exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List