I can't get my head around pharmacology

An email gone astray can provide fascinating insights for an unintended recipient. Written correspondence has undoubtedly fallen into the wrong hands since homo sapiens first put pigment on bark, but never before has it been so easy to have a personal message go awry. No longer is it a matter of surreptitiously steaming open sealed letters or snooping around in wastepaper baskets. Finding out another's personal business is now just a click away. Even more conveniently, candid opinions can sometimes make an unscheduled landing in your inbox, making for intriguing reading -- as I discovered. Some time ago, I'd sent out feelers regarding possible new GP jobs and had emailed a particular practice principal a couple of times, expressing interest. When it looked likely that I was going to pursue a different path, I sent a polite email explaining the situation and telling him I wouldn't be seeking an interview for a job at his practice at present. An email bounced back saying that my not wanting to work for him may be "a relief" as I "sounded a bit intense". It was sans salutation but, based on the rest of the content, was obviously intended for one of his work colleagues. It had no doubt been a simple error of his pressing 'reply' rather than 'forward'. I was chuffed: I've never been called "intense" before, at least, not to my knowledge. Perhaps there are several references to my intensity bouncing around cyberspace but this is the only one my inbox has ever captured. I've never considered myself an intense person. To me, the term conjured up the image of a passionate yet very serious type, often committed to worthy causes. Perhaps I had the definition wrong. I looked it up. The Oxford Dictionary gave me: "having or showing strong feelings or opinions; extremely earnest or serious". Unfortunately, I couldn't reconcile my almost pathologically Pollyanna-ish outlook, enthusiasm, irreverence and light-heartedness to this description -- nor my somewhat ambivalent approach to politics, religion, sport, the environment and other "serious" issues. At least the slip-up was minor. Several years ago, I unintentionally managed to proposition one of my young, shy GP registrars by way of a wayward text message. He had the same first name as my then-husband. Scrolling through my phone contacts late one night, alone in a hotel room at an interstate medical conference, I pressed one button too many. Hence this innocent fellow received not only declarations of love but a risqué suggestion to go with it. Not the usual information imparted from medical educator to registrar! It took me several days to realise my error, but despite my profuse apologies, the poor guy couldn't look me in the eye for the rest of the term. If I was "intense", I would conclude on a ponderous note -- with a moral message that would resonate with the intellectually elite. Alas, I'm a far less serious kind of girl and, as a result, the best I can up with is: Senders of emails and texts beware -- you are but one click away from being bitten on the bottom. (This blog post has been adapted from a column first published in Australian Doctor). Dr Genevieve Yates is an Australian GP, medical educator, medico-legal presenter and writer. You can read more of her work here.  

Can you imagine being able to search for locations in the human body in the same way you can on Google Maps? This thinking lead Programmer Rich Stoner to create this amazing video of a 21st Century Map of the Brain which was our most popular tweet last week. A 21st Century Map of the Brain http://t.co/tkojzJBW55 via @brianglanz #openscience— Meducation (@Meducation) October 18, 2013 Rich writes in his blog - “Now we can quickly search Google Maps for a location, ask what is nearby, and even see what it looks like using StreetView. Now, imagine if something like that existed for the human brain: an interactive environment to search, visualize, and explore layers upon layers of neuroanatomy. This is the dream of cortical cartographers (also known as neuroanatomists). 10 years ago, one of the largest brain mapping initiatives was founded by Paul Allen with a single goal: to build a 21st Century Map of the Brain.” Click here to read more. The mapping of the brain is a working progress and therefore not 100% accurate. Even so the video gives us an insight into the innovate ways we will be able to interact with science in the future. You can follow Meducation on twitter to see more tweets like this at twitter.com/meducation.  

Hello & Welcome! You may have already read my blog on 'My Top 5 Tips to use Social Media to Improve your Medical Education' and if so you will have an idea of what 'Social Media' is and how it can be harnessed to improve medical education. There are also features that could improve health promotion and communication but today I would like to focus on where we have to be careful with these resources. In my last blog I circumnavigated the drawbacks of social media in medicine so that I could give them the full attention they deserve in their own blog today. But its not all doom and gloom! I also hope to give you a brief overview of the current social media guidance that is available to doctors and medical students and how we can minimise the risks associated with representing ourselves online. But firstly, what actually is social media and why do i keep blogging about it? If you are new here I recommend giving 'Social Media' a quick google, but the phrase basically includes any website where the user (i.e. you) can upload information and interact with other users. Thats a definition of the top of my head, so don't hold me to it, but most people would agree that this definition includes the classic examples of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Linkedin etc, but there are many many more. These sites are important to us as (future) health professionals because they can be both used and unfortunately abused. However, several medical bodies including the General Medical Council and the Royal College of General Practitioners agree that these resources are here to stay and they shouldn't (and probably couldn't) be excommunicated. With this in mind, there has been much guidance on the topic, but as you are about to find out a lot of it is common sense and your own personal discretion. Before you read on, I'd like to forewarn you that I try and keep things lighthearted with this topic. I'll hope you can excuse my levity of the situation, especially if any of the original authors of these guidelines end up reading this post. But as I am sure you are aware, this is a dry topic and hard to digest without the odd joke or two... British Medical Association - Using Social Media: practical and ethical guidance for doctors and medical 2011 The BMA guidance is the earliest guidance originating from a major medical body that i've come across. That said, I have not done a proper literature review of the subject. This is a blog, not a dissertation. But still, the BMA gives an early and brief summary of the problems facing health professionals using social media. Key points such as patient confidentiality, personal privacy, defamation, copyright and online professionalism are covered and therefore it is a nice starting point. It is also quite a short document, which may appeal to those who are less feverent on the subject. On the other hand, I personally feel that the BMA guidance does social media an injustice by not going into the great benefits these resources can yield. There are also no really practical tips or solutions for the drawbacks they've highlighted to students. Read it for yourself here or just google 'BMA Guidance Social Media' Royal College of General Practitioners - Social Media Highway Code Feb 2013 The RCGP guidelines are my favourite. After a cheesy introduction likening the social media surge with the dawn of the automobile they then take a turn for the worse by trying to continue the metaphor further by sharing a 'Social Media Highway Code'. Their Top 10 Tips that form the majority of the code don't look to be much more than common sense. However, each chapter there after dissects each of their recommendations in great detail and provides practical tips on how to make the most from social media whilst protecting yourself from the issues raised above. As I mentioned earlier, the RCGP recognise the inevitability of social media and they acknowledge this in the better part of their introduction. They make a great point that older doctors have a responsibility to become technologically savvy, whereas younger doctors who have grown up engrossed in social networking probably have to develop their professionalism skills more than their older colleagues (I'm aware this is a generalising statement). Either way, the RCGP highlight that everyone has something to take away from this set of guidelines. Read it for yourself here or google; 'RCGP Social Media Guidance,' but be warned, this is one of the more lengthy documents available on the topic. General Medical Council - Doctor's Use of Social Media April 2013 The GMC guidance kicks off with a little summary of the relevant bits of 'Good Medical Practice.' Again, nothing much that isn't common sense. That being said, they then go on to write that 'Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk,' which sounds ominous and probably warrants a quick flick through (do it now! - the PDF is at the bottom of their page). Reassuringly, the GMC does not try and place a blanket ban on social media. They give a 'tip of the hat' to the benefits of social media and then go on to outline all the drawbacks as many of the guidance already has. Asides from the issue of anonymity there is really nothing new covered and the GMC actually gives a lot of autonomy to doctors and medical students. However, the GMC are, in many ways, who we ultimately answer to and so you would be a fool not to revisit the issues they cover in their version of the guidance. As I mentioned, the GMC brought online anonymity to the forefront of our minds. Should we, shouldn't we? A lot of health professionals believe that the human right to a private life extends to the right to have anonymity online. However, before we go into this any further lets take a closer look at what the GMC actually says... If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name. Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the view of the profession more widely. As you can see, the use of the phrase 'Should also identify yourself by name' gives some room for manoeuvre and is a world apart from what could have been written (i.e. you must). To those who believe their human rights are being infringed, perhaps a solution is to stop identifying yourself as a doctor online, although I appreciate this can be difficult if you are tagged in certain things. There are a number of good points why doctors shouldn't be anonymous online and it is certainly a must if you are in the trade of offering health promotion via the world wide web. However, I can see the point of those who want to remain anonymous for comical or satirical purposes. A quick google of the topic will reveal that the GMC has said that they do not envisage fitness to practice issues arising from doctors remaining anonymous online, but from the temptations that arise from running an anonymous profile such as cyber-bullying and misinformation. Read the GMC guidance yourself here. National Health Service (Health Education) - Social Media in Education May 2013 The NHS-HE guidelines are high quality and cover the entire scope of what social media means to medicine. There are several key issues that I haven't encountered elsewhere. This set of guidance is written from a managerial, technical perspective. It doesn't really feel aimed at doctors or medical students but it gives such an overview of the subject that I thought it was worth including. If you feel brave enough, read it for yourself here. Conclusion To my knowledge, these are the current key guidelines for the use of social media in medicine. I hope you have found this blog useful in providing a quick summary of a topic that is becoming increasingly swamped with lengthy guidelines. In the future we need to see material produced or delivered that educates health professionals in how to use social media, rather than regurgitating the pros and cons every couple of months. I think webicina is a good example of a social media 'training course,' . There should be more material like this. Perhaps this is where I'm headed with my next project... As always, if you have anything to add to this blog, please feel free to add to the comments below. I will be able to take difficult queries forwards with me to the Doctors 2.0 conference next week! If you are a student and interested in coming to the conference in Paris next week you should get in contact with me directly (@LFarmery on twitter). Also, it would be a great help if you could fill out my very quick pilot survey to help me understand how doctors and medical students currently use social media. Also see my website Occipital Designs LARF Disclaimer The thoughts and feelings expressed here are those produced by my own being and are not representative in part or whole of any organisation or company. Occipital Designs is a rather clunky, thinly veiled, pseudonym. If you would like to contact me please do so on Twitter...  

The book of the week this week has been Chris Patten’s “Not quite the diplomat” – part autobiography, half recent history and a third political philosophy text. It is a fascinating insight into the international community of the last 3 decades. The book has really challenged some of my political beliefs – which I thought were pretty unshakeable – and one above all others, the EU. I read this book to help me decide who I should vote for in the upcoming MEP elections. I have to make a confession, my political views are on the right of the centre and I have always been quite a strong “Eurosceptic”. Although recently, I have found myself drifting further and further into the camp of “we must pull out of Europe at all costs” but Mr Patten’s arguments and insights have definitely made me question this stance. With the European Parliamentary elections coming up, I thought it might be an interesting time to put some ideas out there for discussion. From a young age, I have always been of the opinion that Great Britain is a world leading country, a still great power, one of the best countries in the world - democratic, tolerant, fair, sensible - and that we don’t need anyone else’s “help” or interference in how our country is run. I believe that British voters should have a democratic input on the rules that govern them. To borrow an American phrase “No taxation without representation!” I believe that democracy is not perfect but that it is the best system of government that humans have been able to develop. For all of its faults, voters normally swing back to the centre ground eventually and any silly policies can be undone. This system has inherently more checks and balances than any meritocracy, oligarchy or bureaucracy (taking it literally to mean being ruled by unelected officials). This is one of my major objections to how the European Union currently works. For all intents and purposes, it is not democratic. Institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. Only one of these institutions is elected by the European demos (the parliament) and that institution doesn’t really make any changes to any policies – “the rubber stamp brigade”. The European Council is made up of the President of the European Council (Unelected), President of the European commission (Unelected) and the heads of the member states (elected) and is where quite a lot of the "major" policies come from but not all of the read tape (the European Commission and Parliament). I am happy to be proved wrong but it just seems that the EU, as a whole, is made up of unelected officials who increasing try to make rules that apply to all 28 member states without any consent from the voters in those states – it looks like the rule of “b-euro-crats” (bureaucrats – this version has far too many vowels for a dyslexic person to use). A beurocratic rule which many of us do not agree with but seemingly have to succumb to, a good example for medics is the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) which means that junior doctors only get paid for working 48h a week when they may spend many, many more hours in work. The EWTD has also made training a lot more difficult for many junior doctors and has many implications for how the health service is now run. Is it right that this law was imposed on us without our consent? If we imposed a treatment on a patient without their consent then we would be in very big trouble indeed! I cannot deny that the EU has done some good in the world and I cannot deny that Britain has benefited from being a member. I just wish that we could pay to have access to the markets, while retaining control over the laws in our lands. I want us to be in Europe, as a partner but not as a vassal. In short, I would like us to stay within the EU but with major reforms. I know that any reforms I suggest will not be read by anyone in power and I know they are probably unrealistic but I thought I would put it out there just to see what people think. I would like to see a NICE’er European Union. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB), part of the UK Department of Health but a separate organisation (http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/who_we_are.jsp). NICE’s role is to advise the UK health service and social services. It does this by assessing the available evidence for treatments/ therapies/ policies etc and then by producing guidelines outlining the evidence and the suggested best course of action. None of these guidelines are enforced by law, for example, as a doctor you do not have to follow the NICE recommendations but if you ignore them and your patient suffers as a consequence then you are likely to be in big trouble with the General Medical Council. So, here would be my recommendations for EU reform: First, we all pay pretty much the same as we do now for access to the European market. We continue with free movement and we keep the European Council but elect the President. This way all the member states can meet up and decide if they want to share any major policies. We all benefit from free movement and we all benefit from a larger free trade area. Second, we get rid of most of the rest of the EU institutions and replace them with an institute a bit like NICE. The European Institute for Policy Excellence (EIPE) would be (hopefully) quite a small department that looks at the best available evidence and then produces guidance on the policy. A shorter executive summary would hopefully also be available for everyday people to read and understand what the policy is about - just like how patients can read NICE executive summaries to understand their condition better. Then any member state could choose to adopt the policy if their parliaments think it worthwhile. This voluntary opt-in system would mean that states retain control of their laws, would probably adopt the policies voluntarily (eventually) and that the European citizens might actually grow to like the EU laws if they can be shown to be evidence based, in the public’s best interests, in the control of the public and not just a law/red tape imposed from above. The European Union should be a place where our elected officials go to debate and agree policies in the best interests of their electorates. There should therefore be an opt-out of any policy for any member state that does not think it will benefit from a policy. This looser union that I would like to see will probably not happen and I do worry that one day we will wake up in the undemocratic united federal states of Europe but this worry should not force us to make an irrational choice now. We should not be voting to "leave the EU at all costs" but we should be voting for reform and a better more co-operative international community. I would not dare suggest who any of you should vote for but I hope you use your vote for change and reform and not more of the same.