Which they don't treat. That's why we have psychiatrists.
>And patients are typically on psychiatric medications, which have cardiac side effects.
Which is something a cardiologist should know. Knowing which mental illness they treat and how it does that isn't relevant.
Medications that are prone to abuse, ones that may be more complex to take, ones that can be dangerous if someone takes too many... all are things the cardiologist should be aware of which takes some basic psychiatric knowledge.
There are few in cardiology, but many physical health meds can definitely create psychiatric side effects. How do you differentiate those from an existing psychiatric illness?
There's a large body of literature that recognizes the links between cardiac care and mental health, resulting in poorer outcomes, increased system utilization and costs, etc. Saying "this is my area, that's yours" exacerbates this problem.
> Which they don't treat. That's why we have psychiatrists.
People with mental illness also have heart problems that need heart surgery. It'd be nice if heart surgeons had a bit of understanding of psychiatry so they can avoid diagnostic overshadowing. This is a significant problem that contributes to the shorted lifespan of people with severe mental illness.
It's difficult to unhorse a debating partner who refuses to allow any evidence but their own imagination.
Oh nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that lower trained providers are just as effective as doctors.
Midwives are equal or better than doctors:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
No difference between Nurse Practioners and Drs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK384613/
Of course we don't have studies comparing what the equivalent radiologist not because it's strictly impossible for it to happen. But because it's strictly illegal.
There's also evidence that the way doctors are trained isn't the only possible way.
Humanities and social science majors who omitted organic chemistry, physics, and calculus, and did not take the MCAT do just as well as traditional students:
https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2010/0800...
Performance in medical school does not correlate with performance in residency:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951767/
>Just let it go. You are making an apex fool of yourself in the eyes of each and every health professional reading this
Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence based argument that cardiologists who have a psych rotation have measurably better patient out comes than those that don't. Or that a radiologist with more biochem knowledge is a better one?
Or does your self-righteousness exclude that 3 professionals telling you you misunderstand could maybe have a point? I certainly earn less than you do and have no MCAT, does that make me more truthful? CRNAs also have to learn a lot about cell biology, is that also useless cruft? Something that is taught in med school is to critically review one's own reasoning!
Forget your petty certitudes and slow down. If there was an easy way to do much better, even the AMA could do nothing to stop it. I certainly don't expect to persuade you and therefore will not take the time to "put up" and brandish more useless Cochrane reviews, but you might consider the remote possibility that you are wrong. And extremely arrogant.
Go hide under a rock!