@Throwaway05's banner p

Throwaway05


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 02 15:05:53 UTC

				

User ID: 2034

Throwaway05


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 02 15:05:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2034

A friend of mine recently went to a specialty conference, she described a lecture she saw that was talking about the difficulty in giving feedback to students these days, a student at the end asked "wait is that why all of my friends and I are told we are doing great the whole rotation and then get a 3/5 on our evaluation at the end?" Everyone just nodded.

Good teaching requires being able to safely give feedback and that just isn't possible anymore. The problem isn't limited to minority students.

Okay fine this a bit of an exaggeration but still.

I encourage this attitude, it's extremely hard to know if your doctor is good or not because the things that are available for a patient to know are generally customer service things that are often extremely uncoupled from actual medical knowledge and practice ability. Very common for people with good customer service skills to be bad doctors.

You'd be surprised how much academic pedigree "matters," plenty of people don't care but you'll find soccer moms, educated people, the neurotic and all kinds of others very insistent on a "good doctor from a good school with good reviews on google," despite how often many of those disconnect from reality. For us it can matter because certain of jobs (like being a program director) may be essentially closed off to you without training at a "good" institution. Now, again this isn't necessarily reality based but it matters to a lot of people.

What you might find more interesting is that programs don't really work like undergrad or other fields. The preclinical half of med school is essentially the same country wide, in a large part because students have settled on a half dozen ultra high quality learning resources and ignore whatever the hell their school is trying to do. Pass rates for the exams (which can be using standardized exams but don't need to be) and boards (standardized) are higher at higher tier schools because the students are better. Therefore fail rates jumping is a huge huge black mark.

The other half of medical school is clinicals which uses standardized exams and evaluations from preceptors to determine your grade. The evaluations can get more program dependent and may actually have deflation, but this is also where variation in educational quality comes in since most schools pre-clinicals are basically the same* these days.

This is a gross simplification but for the purposes of this discussion should do.

What's your epistemic certainty on this? Where is the bottle neck? What level of selection is necessary? Do you know the data on under trained providers vs traditionally trained ones? We have it.

What does a doctor actually do? I don't think you actually know, in all likelihood your primary interaction with medicine has been outpatient or maybe some emergency, where most of the work is in inpatient (and for academics, research) and necessarily invisible to patients since they aren't following us around. Most patients don't have any actual need to see the hard work but it's very much their and being done and intensely concentrated on things like the elderly, chronically ill, and people who randomly role through with a one time episode of something.

For instance proper antibiotic selection can be tremendously complicated, and we can see this by looking at things like stewardship rates between NPs -> Urgent Care -> Procedural -> Primary Care -> IM -> ID.

Doctors almost always insist that their friends and family see actual doctors instead of NPs and PAs for a reason, and that's because the job is complicated and the training is doing something useful.

Every field has bad apples, the way medical education is structured it is very hard to get through without a certain floor level of competence.

When I think about "bad" doctors the ones I run into are generally lazy/burnt out types, or outright malicious/unethical types. Traditional incompetence is rare, because those people get kicked out of medical school or residency....unless they are a favored minority group.

In my career I've run into a handful of white/Asian doctors who are truly incompetent, while I've run into plenty of great URM (underrepresented in medicine) doctors, a noticeable percentage of URMs should never have been advanced through training. It's not a lot, but it's way way way more than the near zero for other demographics, and all of the absolutely catastrophic idiots have been URMs.

From asking it around it seems like the attitude is that it's easier for a programs reputation to advance an incompetent URM student than deal with the flack from trying to put the person through remediation and/or termination (in part because medical education now includes a lot of mandatory education in toolkits these students can use to complain).

This has been huge, students used to spend 2+ years studying to get the highest possible score on an exam they get to take one time so you had to be sure. Now they just try to pass. Now a lot of that exam was stuff that "doesn't really matter" (ex: biochem pathways) but the incentive shift was absolutely massive.

I once saw an interview with a bunch of (young) Japanese women where said women expressed they wouldn't mind if a partner went to a brothel but they'd get very upset if the partner went to a Hostess Club.

Who knows.

The primary treatment for ADHD is stimulants (and Concerta is one). Most people get some form of benefit from stimulants, if this wasn't the case Coffee wouldn't be as popular (or uhhh Meth, which is what Adderall basically is).

It is however, very common for people to think they have ADHD (and even get diagnosed with it) when that is not the case. Other things can cause problems with attention, focus, and so on - depression, anxiety, medical illness, personality disorders. Most notably perhaps is simple modernity. Sitting in an office focusing on boring shit all day is not what our bodies and brains are designed to do.

If you don't have ADHD, taking a stimulant will likely give some form of performance boost but how helpful it is, is going to be deeply variable and may pass diminishing returns very quickly.

People with "real" ADHD are going to have a very different experience with stimulants most of the time.

That's not to say the above is 100% guaranteed, but it's good short hand. Plenty of people will pop a Vyvanse while studying for a tough exam and get some benefit out of it, but the way the medication is meant to address ADHD symptoms does not apply to people with "normal" brains, which may not be intuitive.

“You have to realistic about these things.”

“Once you've got a task to do, it's better to do it than live with the fear of it.” ― Joe Abercrombie, The Blade Itself

I see a much bigger rise in prevalence in women and assume the usual causes, for instance I've had a number of female friends and family members asked me if they should get a tattoo, if they'll be judged for it, will men hate it etc. I say nothing. Which is the same approach I assume most people use. The judgement for tattoos is still there, but saying anything that can be interpreted as critical to a woman is such a bad idea that people say nothing and the gap in preferences goes unchallenged.

Hey man, like what about justice man?

I do mean this seriously however. Don't underestimate how many people on both sides are incensed due to their understanding of the facts on the ground and feel like the situation is untenable. In the case of the pro-Israel side you'll find people from all over the word who interpret events as "I have no particular interest in or affection for jews, but I see Hamas as terrorists and terrorism can't be allowed to flourish, out of either a sense of justice, or out of fear for what may later happen to me and mine if people find this valid."

Why shouldn't an owner be able to buy a failing restaurant, sell the real estate, and then let the restaurant fail?

Sounds fine, until your area loses its hospital because PE came in and did something similar (it's a growing problem in healthcare). Lots of organizations you wouldn't want to lose are sitting on valuable real estate and operating with razor thin margins or other similar sins.

It's worth noting that while some of the impetus for anorexia may come from social and cultural expectations and so on, it is very, very much a mental illness and has dysmorphic components. You can't easily reason your way out of it especially if people "feel" fat (while objectively being thin, it's somewhat of a psychotic process). "Yeah yeah if I was really skinny you might be right but I just have to shed these last few pounds to be normal" is a bizarre sounding but reasonable in their own mind response.

I wouldn't call it "don't allow." VBAC's can be very dangerous, they can also be safe, the relevant care team will likely try to assess the risks and summarize for the patient. OB is pretty notorious for being a bit more heavy handed with consent than some specialties, but that's ultimately not that unreasonable when many women are interested in fucking off and having a "natural" birth at home even when it's high risk to the baby and mom (and notoriously, will see the doctor even when it's a consequence of their own shitty decision).

This over focus on outcomes and liability potential is also why you shouldn't trust those stories from mothers. Yes it probably happens at times, and certainly used to be more common back in the days when OB was >85% male instead of >85% female, but OBs are way too worried about getting sued and making sure the baby is okay to do that for the most part.*

And hospitals are very likely to have a dedicated laborist these days anyway.

*"Force" mom to have a C-Section and something goes wrong because you wanted to go play golf? That's a multi-million dollar liability judgement. Everyone knows that isn't worth it.