Thursday, 6 January 2011

the family doctor Vs the FAMILY doctor


I hate being the only doctor in the family. Aunts, grannies, nieces and friends of theirs all seem too keen to show me their bumps and bruises at any opportunity, in the hope of getting a quick diagnosis. I even had a relative show me his penis recently!

I hate this. Not because I don't understand their frustration at being stuck on a waiting list, or having to pay to see a GP. I hate it because I'm worried I'll get something wrong.

There's a meddling lady who lives near our family home, who brought her child around to my house when I was a 1st year medical student, and asked me to look at her injured shoulder. She'd fallen off a trampoline and landed on it. I'd never seen a broken shoulder before, and told her that.

"But what do you THINK might be wrong?"

I buckled and told her it didn't LOOK broken to me. But I told her I didn't know for sur, and that she should get it checked out in the emergency department.

IN her head that became "this shoulder is most definitely NOT broken, and there is no need to seek medical care for this child". Obviously, the pain persisted for a few days, and she got an x-ray....diagnosis = "broken" shoulder.

To this day she tells everyone who'll listen that it's a crime for me to be doing paediatric emergency medicine, as I can't even diagnose a broken shoulder.

So, today when my gran rang me to say she's getting "funny turns" I told her to see a doctor and she seemed disappointed that I wasn't offering a diagnosis. I don't want want to be that guy who can't even diagnose granny with x, y or z.

So, to the families of doctors out there, I ask you, on their behalf, to treat them like the clueless mucker you grew up with, and not as the professor of brain surgery that they actually are.

Happy new year to you all.

Dr. T


Friday, 5 November 2010

Kudos to you, Mr GP.

Overheard in the supermarket today:

Mildly coryzal staff member: I've had this cold for 4 days now, and it's pissing me off. I went to my GP, and the idiot refused to prescribe antibiotics.

Other staff member: Seriously?? That's awful. You should change doctors.

Mildly coryzal staff member: Oh you better believe I will. I gave him a piece of my mind and told I won't be back to his crappy surgery ever again. He didn't care, though, and pretty much told me it was my perogative.

So, there you go. Props to that unnamed, unsung hero of general practice.

The future MRSA patients of the plant thank you :D

Dr. T

Friday, 29 October 2010

Why?


Dear baby Jesus. Why.......

1) do the sickest kids have the most difficult veins?

2) do the the kids with nothing wrong with them have the most anxious parents?

3) do doctors forget all non-bone related medicine as soon as they become orthopaedic surgeons?

4) do the kids with cancer always come from the nicest families?

5) are people not bothered when the doctor looking after their unwell kid has worked more hours than a pilot or lorry driver are legally allowed?

6) do we employ doctors from developing countries, when we know children in their home nations die in their droves for want of medical attention?

7) do the politicians always know better than us when it comes to health policy?

8) do we laugh when a baby pees all over us, but rush to change our clothes when Albert on the geriatric ward does the same thing?

9) do some parents oppose vaccination so strongly, while parents in poorer countries routinely watch their children die of tetanus and pertussis and other preventable diseases?

10) are physiotherapists and occupational therapists so much hotter than the general population?

If you can answer these questions (and any others posted in the comments section), Lord, then I shall return to church :D

Many thanks for your time,

Dr Thunder.


Thursday, 23 September 2010

Long hours? Or a long time training?

I’m not a fan of too much work. Over the years, I’ve done my fair share of long shifts, nights, weekends, public holidays, and combinations of all the above.

I don’t function well when I’m tired and hungry and thirsty. And most patients don’t want to be seen by an overworked, sluggish, grumpy doc whose priority is a bed and some food. Certainly, I wouldn’t have wanted any member of my family to have depended on care from me after working 27 hours straight.

I always thought my colleagues agreed with me. Enough miserable faces on the corridors of the various hospitals I’ve worked in made me feel a collective yearning for better conditions.

I thought, therefore, that there would be widespread endorsement of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) when it came into force in Ireland and the UK. The EWTD is designed to limit the working hours of doctors within the European Union. Depending on the stage of implementation, it can mean working a maximum of 48-56 hours per week.

Of course, here in Australia, they’ve managed to do that without relying on international law. Down under, the rules for doctors’ hours seem to be enforced on a regional basis. In fact, from what I can gather, the rules seem to be MADE locally too. But, by and large, it works. Sure, I’ve been miserable and tired and hungry working in Oz, but I’ve never had to work 72 hours on the trot, let alone do it on a regular basis, as happens in Ireland.

Forgetting for a moment that the Irish government has decided to simply ignore the EWTD, and continue to make their juniors work ridiculously long hours, I was amazed to learn that there are significant groups of doctors in the UK and Ireland who oppose the implementation of the EWTD.

These doctors argue that registrars, like me, and other junior staff, need to be exposed to lots of cases in order to become proficient consultants. They argue that patients come to harm at the hands of tired doctors, but also from inexperienced seniors.

I can see their point. However, I don’t buy it. I can’t accept that dangerously long hours are the only way, especially when urban Australia manages fine without total burnout of their medical staff. There has to be a middle ground.

My take on the long hours culture is as follows:

1) If we juniors want to reduce our hours then we have to expect it to take longer to become consultants. Everything in medicine is being streamlined these days, and that needs to stop. We need to return to 5/6 year medical degrees, and long apprenticeships as house officers and registrars.

2) A lot of doctors' time is taken up doing admin work that anybody could do (chasing xrays, filling out blood forms, chasing blood results on the computer etc). These tasks should become the work of someone else, so that doctors actually spend their time doctoring. I remember as an intern working out that about 60% of my tasks could be done by a competent member of admin staff.

3) Our training is important. But so are our lives outside medicine. I sympathise with the wannabe surgeon who wants to work all hours, learning how to do craniozygomatic surgery. But, there are those of us who have wives, girlfriends, kids, and a family life. I want to be a good consultant. But I doubt I’ll look back from my deathbed and say “I’m glad I worked so much”.

4) Patients need to do more. Relatives, friends, patients and strangers are almost always sympathetic towards me, regarding the plight of junior doctors. But how many have ever raised the issue with a canvassing politician? I don't expect the public to have our interests forefront in their mind at election time. But this is about patient safety, as much as it is about modern day slavery. As things stand, the politicos and the media often betray us as greedy and as a vested interest group, and very little of that gets refuted.

5) We have to be wiling to take industrial action. End of. I would be very reluctant to do so in oz, as my job is busy, but tolerable. But if a pregnant junior doc in Ireland who is working 48 hours solid, with no scheduled breaks, isn't entitled to strike, then who is. the media would love it. They would betray us as lecherous public servants trying to bleed the state dry. The media and politicians would distort the facts to make us look greedy. But screw them. I bet we could hold out longer being abused by tabloid readers then they could hold out with no doctors. Obviously, I would never advocate withdrawing acute services. But a work-to-rule or skeleton staffing would cause some browning of pants in the corridors of power.

The Australians do a good job of it (well, in the cities they do, their rural healthcare provision can be pretty piss poor). Ireland and the UK should learn from them. Mostly we’re rostered on for a 38 hour week. We do on-call and out of hours, of course. But those shifts tend to be interspersed with good weeks, where we can catch up with friends and family This is not the case in Ireland and the UK.

I know from experience that some Ozzies will post comments here telling me that they work terrible hours too. And of course that can be true. I once did a paeds emergency medicine job here where my partner was getting seriously worried about my health. I was literally exhausted all the time. I was grumpy, and never seemed to have any joy in my life. That’s not the way to live. And it’s not the frame of mind I want the doctor in when I bring my sick kid to see them.

I know everyone is an expert when it comes to public sector reform. Just look at the comments section of any newspaper article or blog on the issue. So I’ll keep my ideas about system change to myself. But Ireland, the UK and Australia need to wake up to this issue. More complex issues have been dealt with in the history of mankind.

All three countries have started the process of saturating us with medical school graduates. In Ireland and Australia especially, every man and his dog can become a doctor. Of course, there hasn’t been a sufficient expansion in the number of hospital training posts to cope with all these new graduates.

That will have the desired effect of making our young doctors accept crappy conditions, as it’s likely to be the only route to a scarce training post.

Perfect solution, if you’re an administrator or politician. Tough luck if you’re a doctor or patient.

Sadly, doing anything about it is a catch 22 situation. There are those who have tried. But what’s the most common response when you ask local juniors to engage on this issue, and stand up for their rights? Yep, you guessed it....”Sorry, I’m just too tired”.

Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Hi, I'm Dr. Thunder. What's your f*cking name, you little ****?


Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe the kids are getting a bit more ballsy. Maybe it's a bit of both!

This week I've been sworn at more in a single shift than ever before. This was a 10 hour paediatric emergency department stint, and there were 3 "incidents".

Normally a single episode of paediatric-potty-mouth is something you remember for a considerable amount of time, as it's reasonably uncommon. But maybe things are changing.


Episode one: I was putting a drip into an 11 year old. It went in nicely. Job done. Poor guy was a bit traumatised by the experienced, and when he regained his composure he screamed "Jesus fucking Christ, doc, that was fucking painful".

Episode 2: Another drip, this tie in a 9 year old girl. As it was going in, she screamed "SHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" continuously. When it was all done, she turned around, with a big happy smile on her face and said "Thank you doctor", and started behaving exactly like a 9 year old girl should.

Episode 3: A teenager who just didn't want to be in the hospital. I came to speak to him, and he just ignored me. I asked his name. Nothing. Not a word. This wasn't unusual teenage behaviour, and it's relatively common. His mother got involved, and napped at him.."TALK TO THE DOCTOR NOW!". In frustration, He shouted "For F*CK sake, my name is Joe*. Happy now????".

You have to laugh, in all honesty. These are scared kids, who are all sick. It's a tough life being an unwell child. But I know I'd have felt an awful lot unwell if I'd sworn at an adult in front of my parents when I was their age!

But, as much as I'm supposed to be disgusted, they were the 3 most amusing interaction of the day :D



*Not his real name, obviously.

Saturday, 28 August 2010

Another GAMSAT snoozefest from the desk of Dr. Thunder.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Yeah I know. I have an unhealthy obsession with GAMSAT. But I'm not just trying to be a bollix. It concerns me that the GAMSAT graduates I've worked with, and the senior GAMSAT course students I've taught, have been, in my opinion, less capable than their tradition course counterparts.

I've expressed that view on here numerous times. Each time the comments section has been filled with people telling me that I'm a dinosaur, and my email fills up with people saying much worse.

So, I decided to have another look through the published evidence to see if I've missed something. Though this entry won't be anything close to a literature review.

For those who have never heard of GAMSAT, it is an admissions test for admissions to medical school. It's used in Australia, Ireland and the UK. Only graduates of other degrees can sit this exam. It tests rational thinking, scientific knowledge and written skills. Looking at sample papers, it's a straight forward enough exam if you put in some work, and have some scientific knowledge. Looking at the message boards on the net, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people are doing very well in this exam after a minimum amount of study. It's also obvious that a lot of entrants to medical school are scoring less in the science section than in the other sections.

Having said that, I'm a great believer in evidence. In fact, it's become an obsession of mine in the last 2 years since I set up a journal club where I work, got involved in published research and did a masters degree with a significant stats component.

But I just can't find the evidence for GAMSAT. It doesn't seem to correlate with med school results, whereas school leaving exams correlate very well (in the UK where this type of study has been conducted).
I also read another study showing that GPA in a previous degree is a better indicator of med school performance than GAMSAT.
Yet another study shows applicant selected by their GAMSAT results are less empathetic than those who enter via the traditional route.
Then there's the study showing that GAMSAT grads are much more confident in their knowledge of cancer medicine than their tradition counterparts, but they actually know less.

I didn't leave anything out in my search. I assumed there was a sentinel GAMSAT paper, on which the widespread adoption of this exam was based. But I couldn't find it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exists, as I used Pubmed, which is a relatively new plaything for me.

I have to say that all the above rings through with me and a lot of my colleagues. I find GAMSAT grads and students to be extremely confident, regardless of how little they know. I have also long said that they have less empathy than I would have hoped. They themselves tell me the opposite is true, but I have yet to see this in practice.

That is, of course, not to say they're all bad. I've worked with some fantastic GAMSAT grads and students, who will go on to be much better doctors than me.

But I'd like to see a more evidence-based approach to med school applications. Does a degree really give people more "life experience"? I did a degree before med school. But I got more life experience outside of that....playing in bands, being involved in martial arts/boxing clubs, being involved in charities, being ill, being in relationships, summer jobs and my life in general. I don't think a few extra years studying and going on the piss has given me any more life experience.

We're also often told that their extra knowledge of other fields is an asset to medicine. Sure, a recent resident of mine was a previous IT grad, so he could fix the computer when it went down, and we were able to access blood results again. But his 3 years at uni studying computers will mean he spends 3 years less as a paediatric consultant, which would have been more useful to the world in general.

Some of the unis are telling us that their GAMSAT grads are getting higher marks than the youngsters. Maybe they are. But when the traditional entrants reach their age, they'll know a shed load more medicine.

It seems that GAMSAT was actually brought in to widen access to medicine. I think that's fair enough, if we're trying to widen access for ethnic minorities for example. But trying to widen access A) Should not include widening access to people who aren't as bright as they should be to get in and B) Shouldn't happen at the expense of producing quality doctors.

I can't see how it widens access based on socio-economic status, as it requires incurring the extra debt of two university courses. GAMSAT courses in Ireland, in particular, involve course fees of about 100,000 euro.

In Ireland, too, it has had the effect of restricting the expansion of places to those completing secondary school. Those kids work their asses off during their teenage years, while everyone else is pissing about, getting drunk and trying in vain to get laid. It takes a lot of discipline and focus to give up your high school years and hit the books. You've got to be bright, focussed and a bloody hard worker to do it. I want to see more of these people in medical school, not people who blitzed GAMSAT because they have a biomedical sciences degree.

I expect my email inbox to fill up again. But I can cope with that. I'm just hoping one of the emailers might tell me why I should support GAMSAT. I'm not closed minded. We tell students that evidence is so important in medicine. I just want to see us live by our own rules.

Dr. Thunder.



Friday, 6 August 2010

Who remembers their first emergency call?


I think experience hardens us all. Nowadays, when I hear the emergency pager go off I stay pretty calm, and I know what has to be done. I know I have the skills to offer a high standard of care, and I know that I have a world class ICU in the same building to help out.

But this sure as hell wasn't the case when I was an intern. On the nightshift, having only been a doctor for 5 days, the emergency beeper went off. This doesn't necessarily mean a cardiac arrest. It can just mean that a patient is heading for one if something isn't done quickly. Much of a muchness for a scared junior doctor, though.

I heard the odd noise, and realised it was the red bleeper attached to my belt. The one I'd hoped might never go off. "222 ward 12" the screen read. When you get the location of an emergency as an intern, your first thought is "I hope I'm far enough away from this so that someone else gets there before me".

I was on ward 11 at the time. Next door. Dammit.

Anyway, no time to dilly dally. I strode into ward 11, trying my best to look confident as I walked over to the group of nurses surrounding a very very pale looking man in his 70s, who was desperately struggling for breath.

medical school just hadn't prepared me for this. What the hell was wrong with this guy?? I knew a whole load of causes of breathlessness. But he was going downhill quickly, and I didn't have time to do a "medical school" history and examination. You know the ones I'm talking about...the examinations where you listen for renal artery bruits and ask about hobbies in the social history.

First thing I decided to do was speak to him, and try to reassure him. But I couldn't. At least I couldn't get his name right. I kept mispronouncing his relatively simple name. I just got tongue tied. Needless to say, this inspired a world of confidence in me.

Why aren't the rest of the arrest team here yet?

I started some nebulisers, and asked the nurse to give him some intravenous steroids. Of course, his cannula wasn't working any more, so I had to put one in. My hands were shaking. My success with inserting drips was patchy at best. But I'd never been under this kind of pressure. I couldn't see a vein anywhere. So, I just rammed the needle into the part of his antecubital fossa where I knew there should be one! Thank god it worked.

But he was still struggling. And I wasn't really sure what to do next.

SURELY the team must be on the way. This guy needs aminophylline and ICU and central lines!!!! And we should probably intubate too!!!!

With that, my Registrar and Senior House Officer (SHO) burst in. Looking at their sweaty, shaking, stammering intern they must have thought something awful was going on. But as I recounted the story, and the SHO examined the patient the registrar said "Ah, he'll be fine. Just keep going with the nebulisers, we'll get a portable chest x-ray, do a blood gas and ring me with the results. That was a nice easy one for your first emergency. Well done, kiddo".

A nice easy one!?! Surely it doesn't get worse than this??

Then the ICU registrar turned up, to see if we needed him. My Registrar said "Nah, it's nothing major. No need for you to be involved".

So, there I was, living an event that will always stay with me. Yet it was "Nothing major" and "a nice easy one" all at once.

To be fair, the registrar was right. In terms of what I deal with in neonatal ICU or in paeds ED, it's not much. But it was one of the scariest experiences of my career.

So, was it just me? Or did anyone else loose half their circulating volume in sweat at their first emergency, and feign a stroke with their inability to speak?

Dr Thunder