New to Meducation?
Sign up
Already signed up? Log In
view moderators

HealthEconomics

Category

Foo20151013 2023 1vzj1mi?1444774262
5
210

Wikipedia - help or hindrance?

It’s quick, it’s easy and we’ve all done it. Don’t blush, whether it’s at our leisure or behind the consultant’s back we can confess to having used the world’s sixth most popular website. You might have seen it, sitting pride of place on the podium of practically any Google result page. Of course, it’s the tell tale sign of one of Web 2.0’s speediest and most successful offspring, Wikipedia. Now for fear of patronizing a generation who have sucked on the teat of this resource since its fledgling years, the formalities will remain delightfully short. Wikipedia is the free, multilingual, online encyclopedia, which harnesses the collective intelligence of the world’s internet users to produce a collaboratively written and openly modifiable body of knowledge. The technology it runs on is a highly flexible web application called wiki. It is open-source software; hence the explosion of wiki sites all united under the banner of combined authorship. Anyone with internet access can edit the content and do so with relative anonymity. It would be unthinkable that a source, which does not prioritize the fidelity of its content, could possibly play a role in medical education. How ironic it seems that medical students can waste hours pondering which textbook to swear their allegiance for the forthcoming rotation, yet not spare a second thought typing their next medical query into Wikipedia. Evidently it has carved itself a niche and not just among medical students, but healthcare professionals as well. According to a small qualitative study published in the International Journal of Medical Informatics, 70% of their sample, which comprised of graduates from London medical schools currently at FY2 and ST1 level, used Wikipedia in a given week for ‘clinical purposes’. These ranged from general background reading to double checking a differential and looking up medications. We are so ensnared by the allure of instantaneous enlightenment; it’s somewhat comparable to relieving an itch. "Just Google it..." is common parlance. We need that quick fix. When the consultant asks about his or her favourite eponymous syndrome or you’re a little short on ammunition before a tutorial, the breadth and ease-of-use offered by a service accessible from our phones is a clandestine escape. The concept of Wikipedia, the idea that its articles are in a way living bodies because of the continual editing process, is its strength. Conversely textbooks are to a degree outmoded by the time they reach their publication date. While I commend the contributors of Wikipedia for at least trying to bolster their pages with references to high impact journals, it does not soften the fact that the authorship is unverifiable. Visitors, lay people, registered members under some less than flattering pseudonyms such as Epicgenius and Mean as custard, don’t impart the sense of credibility students (or for that matter patients)expect from an encyclopedia. Since the prestige of direct authorship if off the cards, it does beg the question of what is their motivation and I’m afraid ‘the pursuit of knowledge and improving humanity’s lot' is the quaint response. There is a distinct lack of transparency. It has become a playground where a contributor can impress his/her particular theory regarding a controversial subject unchallenged. Considering there is no direct ownership of the article, who then has the authority to curate the multiple theories on offer and portray a balanced view? Does an edit war ensue? It is not unheard of for drug representatives to tailor articles detailing their product and erase the less pleasant side-effects. Obviously Wikipedia is not unguarded, defences are in place and there is such a thing as quality control. Recent changes will come under the scrutiny of more established editors, pages that are particularly prone to vandalism are vetted and there are a special breed of editors called administrators, who uphold a custodial post, blocking and banishing rebellious editors. A study featured in the First Monday journal put Wikipedia to the test by deliberately slipping minor errors into the entries of past philosophers. Within 48 hours half of these errors had been addressed. Evidently, the service has the potential to improve over time; provided there is a pool of committed and qualified editors. Wikiproject Medicine is such a group of trusted editors composed primarily of doctors, medical students, nurses, clinical scientists and patients. Since 2004, its two hundred or so participants have graded an excess of 25,000 health-related articles according to quality parameters not dissimilar to peer review. However, the vast majority of articles are in a state of intermediate quality, somewhere between a stub and featured article. Having some degree of professional input towards a service as far reaching as Wikipedia will no doubt have an impact on global health, particularly in developing countries where internet access is considered a luxury. March this year saw the medical pages of the English Wikipedia reach a lofty 249,386,264 hits. Its ubiquity is enviable; it maintains a commanding lead over competing medical websites. The accessibility of this information has catapulted Wikipedia far beyond its scope as a humble encyclopedia and into a medical resource. Patients arrive to clinics armed with the printouts. As future doctors we will have to be just that one step ahead, to recognise the limitations of a source that does not put a premium on provenance but is nevertheless the current public health tool of choice. Illustrator Edward Wong This blog post is a reproduction of an article published in the Medical Student Newspaper, November 2013 issue.  
James Wong
almost 8 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 10r211s?1444774270
5
113

Why can't we have a NICE'er EU?

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.  
jacob matthews
over 7 years ago
Preview
5
100

Physiology of the pancreatic α-cell and glucagon secretion: role in glucose homeostasis and diabetes

The secretion of glucagon by pancreatic α-cells plays a critical role in the regulation of glycaemia. This hormone counteracts hypoglycaemia and opposes insulin actions by stimulating hepatic glucose synthesis and mobilization, thereby increasing blood glucose concentrations. During the last decade, knowledge of α-cell physiology has greatly improved, especially concerning molecular and cellular mechanisms. In this review, we have addressed recent findings on α-cell physiology and the regulation of ion channels, electrical activity, calcium signals and glucagon release. Our focus in this review has been the multiple control levels that modulate glucagon secretion from glucose and nutrients to paracrine and neural inputs. Additionally, we have described the glucagon actions on glycaemia and energy metabolism, and discussed their involvement in the pathophysiology of diabetes. Finally, some of the present approaches for diabetes therapy related to α-cell function are also discussed in this review. A better understanding of the α-cell physiology is necessary for an integral comprehension of the regulation of glucose homeostasis and the development of diabetes.  
joe.endocrinology-journals.org
almost 7 years ago
Preview
5
138

ObamaCare and Anesthesia

A key question in our specialty is “How will ObamaCare affect anesthesiology?” I don’t have a crystal ball, but based on what I’ve read, what I’ve observed, and what I’m hearing from other physicians, these are my predictions on how ObamaCare will change anesthesia practice in the United States: There will be more patients waiting…  
theanesthesiaconsultant.com
over 6 years ago
1
5
189

watch

(Disclaimer: The medical information contained herein is intended for physician medical licensing exam review purposes only, and are not intended for diagnos...  
youtube.com
over 6 years ago
Preview 250x249
4
81

Labyrinth and the Liminal Student

Background The transition period from undergraduate training to postgraduate “foundation” practice is brief – often only a matter of a few days - but its impact is profound. What was previously a well supported, structured learning environment is suddenly a strange and potentially frightening place where critical decision-making skills, authority and professionalism seem suddenly more relevant than all of the knowledge amassed in undergraduate training. Foundation doctors indicate that the undergraduate experience does little to prepare them for the shock of actual practice. Summary of work An emerging initiative within the University of Edinburgh’s College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine is to adopt the easy-to-use authoring tools and principals associated with Game Informed Learning to afford collaborative groups of later year undergraduates and foundation doctors the scope to create learning objects for undergraduates. Conclusions Using in-house developed instruments such as the branching scenario authoring tool “Labyrinth”, these groups draw on their recent experience of this transition period to create learning objects that not only directly address perceived gaps in the range of learning support activities available to undergraduates but also, using the principals of game-informed learning to situate the activities within realistic contexts, and plausible scenarios which offer an indication of what practice will feel like. Take-home message Learning tools to ease the transition between medical student and doctor.  
Jennifer Willder
about 12 years ago
Preview
4
400

Part II - Regulation of Blood Pressure (Hormones)

https://www.facebook.com/ArmandoHasudungan IMAGE: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Ss3-wJfHrpYlNzSkxaWDNpaWs/edit?usp=sharing  
Nicole Chalmers
almost 8 years ago
Preview
4
60

Global Epidemiology of HIV Infection among Men Who Have Sex with Men | The New York Academy of Sciences

At the NYAS March 2011 Music, Science and Medicine conference, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and 2010 Blavatnik Award winner, Daniela Schiller, talks to Roger Bingham about how she got into science and reviews research in modifying fear memories.  
nyas.org
almost 8 years ago
Preview
4
23

Healthcare & Life Sciences Summit - Tim Smart, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Tim Smart, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, speaking at the Healthcare & Life Sciences Summit during the British Business Embassy on 2 August 2012.  
YouTube
over 7 years ago
Preview
4
106

Male Reproductive System - Hormonal Function and Regulation

https://www.facebook.com/ArmandoHasudungan Support me: http://www.patreon.com/armando Instagram: http://instagram.com/armandohasudungan Twitter: https://twit...  
YouTube
almost 7 years ago
Preview
4
103

Firearms regulation and male suicide in Quebec

Stream Firearms regulation and male suicide in Quebec by BMJ talk medicine from desktop or your mobile device  
SoundCloud
almost 7 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 8occ4b?1444774213
4
147

A taste of someone else's medicine

Choosing a career path is one of the hardest (non-clinical) decisions many doctors will face in their professional lives. With almost 100 specialties and sub-specialties available, settling on any one career can seem pretty daunting, particularly as in the majority of cases the choice will set a path you’re likely to be on for the next 30+ years. But, with only a very small range of these specialties and almost none of the sub-specialties available to undertake as rotations during any one foundation programme, finding out what actually working in different specialties is like can be difficult. It’s likely you’ll have at least identified an area you’re kind of/maybe interested in before starting the foundation programme but, to use a total cliché, you wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test drive, right? There is good evidence to show that any experience, even if only brief, can be very influential on career choice and this is why all deaneries offer new doctors to undertake a ‘taster week’ at some point during the Foundation Programme. This is usually from 2-5 days, taken as study leave, in a specialty of the doctor’s choosing which they haven’t and won’t work during their foundation programme. Most hospitals will allow doctors to do this at an external hospital or organisation if the desired specialty isn't available locally. Tasters are often organised by the trainee but deaneries are encouraged to provide a list or register of structured taster programmes to its trainees. A timetable split into half-day activities, including time for 1:1 discussion with both consultants and trainees, should be provided or agreed with a supervisor, which gives the doctor as broad an experience of the roles, responsibilities, highlights, challenges and lifestyle of the specialty as possible. This should then give the doctor plenty of food for thought and provide an opportunity for (you guessed it) reflection to confirm or exclude that specialty as a career choice and identify (if the former) what steps they need to take to get there. At the end of the experience the doctor should fill in a feedback form and formally reflect in their portfolio. Taster weeks aren't limited to particular specialties and sub-specialties either; there are plenty of more over-arching opportunities such as experiencing leadership and management roles or getting involved in academia, research or medical education. As long as you can identify and describe what you’ll aim to learn or understand from the experience, almost any taster is possible. So, how do you go about it? Each deanery should have a policy relating to taster weeks, or have an responsible administrator who can provide advice. Talking to your educational supervisor can also be really useful. Considering early on in FY1 which area or specialty you want to explore is important; time runs out scarily quickly and taking time out of rotations needs careful planning and co-ordination to make sure there is enough cover for your day job. You may already know or have identified an appropriate supervisor who will facilitate the experience but if not, your supervisor or administrator will almost certainly be able to point you in the right direction. You’ll never get to experience every possible career path before starting out on one; the specialty or sub-specialty you eventually work in may not even exist yet. But getting an idea of what you’ll definitely consider, or definitely won’t, will give you a better chance of identifying something that will suit you personally and professionally, and, particularly in the more competitive and run-though specialties will give you another example of commitment to specialty. Don’t be afraid to think outside the box or look at something really niche – it may give you a taste for something unexpected that you’ll love for life. References: http://www.foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/download.asp?file=Tasters_guidance_2011_final-2.pdf  
Dr Lydia Spurr
almost 8 years ago
Preview
4
164

Interview with Dr. Chris Salierno, Chief Editor of Dental Economics

Our editorial team was delighted to welcome Dr. Chris Salierno, the new Chief Editor of Dental Economics into the Dental Geek studio.  
youtube.com
over 6 years ago
Preview
4
116

Prerenal Acute Renal Failure with High FENa (Fractional Excretion of Sodium)

Very good case in showing a frequently overlooked issue of diuretics. Remember, there is almost never a reason to give both fluids and diuretics...make up your mind. IV fluids are the #1 method to try in oliguric pts NOT Lasix.Do not agree with Foley cath placement if patient is able to urinate and can check creatinine to know pt is improving. Any catheter is a foreign body and increases infection risk.It is also very uncomfortable for patients.Not sure why U/S of kidney needed right away either unless the patient has chronic kidney disease or does not improve with fluids.Unnecessary tests add to the expense of healthcare which all of us pay for. This increases insurance costs, medicaid costs, etc so much it can put companies (and gov't in the future?) out of business.  
clinicalcases.org
over 6 years ago
Preview
4
125

Retrospective on Health Economics by Dr. Kenneth Arrow

Bruce Hollingsworth interviews Dr. Kenneth Arrow. This video focuses on one portion of a larger interview. This video is available publicly with permission f...  
youtube.com
over 6 years ago
0
4
143

watch

*Required coursework  
youtube.com
over 6 years ago
29833
3
75

The Apprentice Surgeon - a basic knot tying resource for undergraduate medical students

This is a video explanation and demonstration of basic surgical knots focusing on the two-handed and one-handed square (reef) knot and the surgeon's friction knot  
Adam Brook
almost 11 years ago