Play for more than you can afford to lose, and you will learn the game.Winston Churchill
Search the site
Other seas to surf...
Science and Behavior
MathStatisticalSkier | Flowing Data | Stat Modeling
HumanitiesWorld Wide Words
0 registered users and 12 anonymous guests on-line.
You are an anonymous guest. You can register here.
Shared decision making based on both evidence and patient preference is popular in the medical literature of late. I don’t understand why anyone would object.
Some of the best and most unexpected moments I’ve had in medicine have involved children.
The computer generated routing slip on the exam room door said he was there because of a knee injury. That turned out to be only partly true.
Beauty is where you find it. Here are some photos of dragonflies….
I see and hear about more and more unhappy physicians, some of whom become happy former-physicians. It makes me reflect on my own circumstances.
I received a memo recently from an institution, extolling the virtues of its screening programs. It was entitled:
Screening Saves Lives.
In large block capitals. I call bullshit on this. Screening does not save lives. FULL. STOP.
It can be amusing when people mistake the map for the territory (sometimes called the reification fallacy). When it harms my patients, though, it pisses me off. And it isn’t just me, or my institution: two physician friends (in other states) tell me they are seeing it as well.
We couldn’t find her sneakers anywhere. They weren’t in the travel bag, under the bench in the mudroom, in either car, at friends’ houses, in the closet or under the bed. After two days, we gave up and bought a new pair sneakers.
A recent article in USA Today talked about Regina Holliday’s efforts to make the medical record more easily and promptly available to patients so it becomes as a tool patients use as they engage in co-managing their own care. Her cause is just and her story is compelling, so I was dismayed at the pushback saying: Not so fast. There are lots of errors and ambiguities in the record, so it is in everyone’s best interest to make the record hard for patients to obtain.
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order. (Alfred North Whitehead)
What is True North for medicine? Is there an enduring core value that serves as a reliable touchstone across the nearly infinite range of medical activities? Given how medicine and society change, can there even be an enduring True North? If we have one, are we pursuing it faithfully?
I was asked by a colleague at work, “Why do you tilt at windmills?” Many have answered this better than I:
It’s always easier to do something than to do nothing. Doctors often offer treatments for things they know are what we call ‘self-limited’ meaning that they will clear up all by themselves. I think this form of unnecessary treatment reflects an awareness that although many things resolve without intervention, both doctors and patients are driven to DO SOMETHING. Though it is usually tempered by the wish to do something as benign as possible, sometimes doing nothing is the best choice. The trick is knowing how to do nothing properly.
We have LOTS of guidelines and recommendations. We could use LOTS more humility.
Under stress, including conditions of overload, systems degrade in a predictable manner.
Rachel called about her elderly father, Blaine, better known to me as Bucky. She requested a ‘nerve pill’ to calm him down at night and a referral to a neurologist to test for dementia.
Our job – though many of us actually see it more as a calling than a job – is to care for patients.
I think this parallels the enduring human drive to search for Truth. There may or may not be an absolute Truth, but it is wrong to think we can discover Truth or understand what Truth is. Science, philosophy and religion are merely our endeavors to see what we can say about Truth.
I am both excited and worried about the recent enthusiasm for precision medicine (PM)
When I envision the ideal health care organization, I picture six characteristics.