📰 | Video: „Esoterik in der Medizin“ bei Meryns Sprechzimmer
Bei „Meryns Sprechzimmer“ ging es neulich um Esoterik in der Medizin. Mit dabei war auch @florianaigner.at, der sich für evidenzbasierte Medizin stark gemacht hat. Alle Infos und Links warten im #SkeptixBlog auf euch.
The more deep learning I do, the more I like logistic regression
E-Scooter-Unfälle sind mit hohen Raten an Schädel-Verletzungen vergesellschaftet (auch in Wien): pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32852595/ Eben diesen Schädel (und das darin hoffentlich enthaltene Hirn) zu schützen ist ein sinnvolles Ansinnen.
I first realised that Sellick's manoeuvre is still a thing when I was studying for the European Diploma. It is practically unheard of here - and I couldn't say that I ever felt I'd needed it.
Same in Austria. Anaesthesiologist for ten years, not a single case of anaphylaxis to rocuronium ever. Then again: no pholcodine in Austria, ever (as far I know). And EMA formally advised against it in 2022.
Just for the sake of argument (the study actually fits my belief set nicely): Why is "reading a text on screen" even being investigated? Shouldn't we make better use of digital media, that is, going beyond "save a tree, scrap a book"? Oh, and what about eInk? 🙃
Books are from the fourteen-hundreds - we use ChatGPT now, don't you know? (Just to go full circle)
Looking forward to my future year-on-year BLS (Bluesky's Limited Serviceability) trainings and assessments.
Maybe I would perform better if I had passed a really hard @bsky.app exam. 🤷🏼♂️
I absolutely agree and wrote just the same in my follow-up comment. At least I hope I did so, because I still do not understand what @bsky.app considered a thread.
I don't disagree, but that is less a criticism of single-point examinations rather than of written or oral ones. Besides, the existence of one does not replace the need for other modalities.
Appraising actual "competence" (whatever that is) is much more complex, and to honour that complexity, time is required. So outcome-focused competence assessment is almost automatically a process over time. But - as with most things CBME - defining the "golden standard" is challenging at best.
That is obviously vitally important, but certainly significantly less than is currently expected in some exams (can't speak for FRCA, have only taken EDAIC). And such safety assessments would undoubtedly require recertification over time.
To provide something meaningful as well: single-point exams are acceptable to ensure minimum standards, i.e., assess, whether candidates do not do things that the much cited "worst clinician with the worst team under the worst circumstances" simply must never do.
I tried to, but my secret effort was unveiled when my AI alter ego suddenly came up with understandable and reproducible ASA scores in pre-anaesthetic assessment.
Absolutely. Which is good, because Artificial Neural Networks are convincing proof that training and outcome assessment are unnecessary. (Sarcasm is noted and might also be found in this statement).
Can't fully agree with your thread in total, but this statement is essential. "Looking something up" (correctly, swiftly, applicably) is a skill in itself that must be taught, trained, and examined, rather than be frowned upon.
Twice Upon In The West.
This whole thread. Basic science informs medical care.
FYI: I hold EDAIC and EDIC (examiner for the latter). Both were challenging (read: nerve wrecking). I practice in 🇦🇹, where neither are a requirement or career benefit. So I agree with your arguments on participants' well-being and pockets - but ICM is vast and hard. Can we make them more beneficial?
Als Zefram Cochrane 2063 den Warp-Antrieb entwickelte, stieß er auf erbitterten Widerstand aus Deutschland. "Diese neue Technologie kann kein Ersatz für Verbrennungsmotoren sein. Außerdem sind die Spaltmaße zu groß", ließ die Interessensvertretung der Automobilindustrie per Fax wissen.
