146 karma · joined December 23, 2016
(There are similar programs around the world with different models of care, notably in Paris, Albuquerque, the Netherlands and Regensburg, Germany).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2...
https://ikeahackers.net/2020/10/fold-out-desk-home-office-pa...
Works really well and given the cost of space for a second desk it was a very cost effective solution - only minimally affects the utility of the wardrobe as a wardrobe. (We didn't build the laptop holder this guy describes, the laptop just gets sat on top of the clothes in the drawer below that shelf with attention to make sure we're not blocking a fan intake. We had a powerpoint and a ethernet port put into the back of the wardrobe but actually we just end up using Wi-Fi mostly.)
I guess this commonly occurs in many fields at a certain level of seniority - the "managing a large system involving many people" aspect can dominate the domain-specific part, be it software engineering, accounting, manufacturing etc. As such I'm really glad I chose medicine rather than SWE (even though I've been writing and loving code for >35 years, and it was a real toss-up when I went to uni) because:
1. You can still stay very hands on, even as a senior clinician, especially procedurally.
2. If you so choose, there's a lot of variety in what you find yourself doing as a doctor (my mix looks like making clinical decisions / talking to patients / families / doing procedures / performing and interpreting ultrasound / going to other hospitals to retrieve super sick patients and bringing them back in ambulances / mentoring / teaching / coding / managing a clinical service / etc - but there are lots of other options too). I'm not sure if this kind of variety is as easy to arrange as a SWE? (though I suspect I'm about to be corrected, thanks in advance.) Variety is quite important if you're easily bored, which is a common problem for bright people.
3. Although AI is coming to all fields, I do think the impact will look more like "better tools", rather than "job replacement", or "vast reduction in number of people needed", for longer in medicine (at least in my area). As a breadwinner this is a not inconsequential consideration.
Hope you find the career you love, and that it leverages the work and study you've already done in some way.
Edit: YouTube link to a transilluminator being used - beware the video does have an unhappy child in it
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/8493-mycosis-...
- NIV (Non invasive ventilation, CPAP is essentially a form of this) doesn't typically perform well (on a patient outcomes, mortality basis) for pneumonia with hypoxia compared with invasive ventilation. However, this is thought to partly be because NIV delays the decision to proceed with intubation and ventilation. If there is no ventilator available, that might change the value of NIV.
- NIV will also likely cause aerosolisation of the virus facilitating spread if there are others in the area. Most sleep apnoea CPAP masks are vented which would probably make this worse (cf unvented masks commonly used on ventilators in an ICU setting)
- Many sleep apnoea CPAP machines don't allow entrainment of supplemental oxygen, which would be likely to be needed in critical COVID-19 infection
Source: I'm an intensive care specialist
My 2 cents worth on differences between more expensive vs cheaper ultrasounds, how ultrasound has changed over time, etc is: * ultrasounds are getting cheaper and better. Harmonic imaging was probably the biggest advance for me. * because of cheaper, better machines, many more doctors are using ultrasound than before. A real challenge is making sure they are appropriately trained to use ultrasound to get the most useful images, that they appropriately interpret what they see, and recognise their own limitations. The results you get from ultrasound are highly dependent on the training and experience of the operator, more than most other imaging modalities. Although some techniques are easy to learn, many require substantial training and experience. Putting ultrasound in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to interpret the findings is not risk free. * there is a significant increase in image quality and the modalities available with more expensive machines (although this does not seem to be a linear relationship over the range of price; once you get into the top echelon of machines, differences in cost between them doesn't necessarily correlate with their capabilities). * With more challenging assessments, these differences in image quality and modalities can mean the difference between a diagnostic and a non-diagnostic scan, and change management and outcomes for patients. However, there are some techniques (e.g. vascular access) where entry level machines are usually adequate, particularly if you have access to a better machine for challenging cases.
Although I'd love to see the quantum leap in imaging quality that some startups are apparently aiming for, I'm not holding my breath. That doesn't mean I don't see a lot of potential for technology to improve though - some things I expect or hope to see over the next decade or two are:
the application of computer vision and machine learning techniques to assist with the interpretation of scans. This is already happening a bit (e.g. strain imaging, automated 3D ejection fraction) and it's an active area of research. It has the potential to improve reproducibility of assessments. Maybe, just maybe it will get good enough to help mitigate the problem of less experienced operators using ultrasound.
multimodality fusion for interventional procedures - already, you can do a TEE (a kind of heart ultrasound) and fluoroscopy (video version of X-ray) and fuse the two images in real time to guide cardiac interventions. Maybe this will extend into other areas: e.g. guiding vascular access by fusing accelerometer / gyro / magnetic positioning / video camera data with ultrasound
virtual reality or augmented reality applications to accelerate the acquisition of ultrasound skills. There are already simulators but they're expensive; as they become cheaper and more doctors have access I'm hopeful we can improve the learning curve for image acquisition a bit!