Tuesday, December 19, 2017

My top 7 posts of 2017

Here are my top seven blog posts of 2017. The blog has been viewed more than 3 million times. Thanks for reading and commenting.

This year’s most viewed post and the all-time leader since I started blogging in 2010 was “Fatal internal jugular vein cannulation by a misplaced NG tube” with over 109,000 page views. I don’t know why this post was so popular. It was linked to by a Facebook nursing site which accounted for the bulk of the views.

My story about medical school graduates who are unable to obtain further training, “The lost sheep: They’re MDs but can’t find residency positions,” was viewed more than 8000 times.

What to do when a normal-looking appendix is found at surgery for appendicitis” was a review of some literature on the topic. I also briefly discussed differences in the way appendicitis is diagnosed in different countries and the results of a Twitter poll of surgeons.

The opioid epidemic: What was the Joint Commission’s role?” was a refutation of the Joint Commission’s attempt to absolve itself of responsibility for the current crisis using its own documents.

In July, I blogged about “The problem of ‘copy and paste’ in electronic records.” The percentage of original thought in electronic progress notes is remarkably low. The problem of “note bloat” is real.

My “Brief summary of 2017 residency match data” found that over 7100 active applicants in the match did not secure residency positions. This is an ongoing and very real issue with no obvious solution in sight.

Finally, my review of the television show “The Good Doctor” was a detailed look at all the implausible medical scenarios featured. Despite my reservations about the program, it became popular. The viewing public doesn’t know the medicine isn't accurate and doesn’t care. I did point out that the actor portraying the lead character, an autistic surgical resident, was excellent. That opinion was shared by many reviewers.



6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The GD wasn't selected by PD nor did he participate in the match. Did he prove that both the PD & the match were irrelevant for excellence?

Skeptical Scalpel said...

You are correct. The good doctor was selected by the president of the hospital apparently without input from the surgical service. The program could be sanctioned for taking a resident outside of the match. However, the penalty is exclusion from the match. Since they didn't participate in the match anyway, it wouldn't be a hardship for the institution.

Old FoolRN said...

I find all your posts to be interesting and enlightening-it must have been tough to single out the top 7. Wishing you Happy Holidays and/or a very Merry Christmas

artiger said...

Perhaps there is a "teaching moment" here for residency programs and the NRMP, ACGME, etc., but I don't look for it to stick. Flexner 2.0 sounds good, but money runs the show now. I'm not looking for (any significant) change in my lifetime.

Skeptical Scalpel said...

Old, same to you and thank you for being such a loyal reader. [https://twitter.com/Skepticscalpel/status/943655622263885825]

Artiger, I agree. I don't think anything important will change.

Anonymous said...

To Artiger's point, I don't think that money is the
whole answer. That's because of the diehard defenders of the status quo. Dr. Thomas Nasca, the ACGME's CEO, opposes any change in the GME, he only wants throwing federal and state money at it. He opposes Missouri law of assistant physician despite the fact that it doesn't grant license to practice independently, much like physician assistant. Laws like Missouri's worry Dr. Nasca because they bypass his role and render his organization less relevant.

Post a Comment