One thing that rankled me when I was a resident was when attending would refer to a paper, not letting on that they were the ones who had written it. This was acutely punctuated when I was pointed to a paper in the JACC that outlined why troponin was the gold standard in MI detection. Next day, I say to the attending, "Oh, I hadn't realized that you had written it".
Well, one day, in conference, we had a cards guy do a presentation on cost-effectiveness of diuresis in an outpatient/ED/obs unit of CHF patients, instead of actual in-patient admissions. This was similar to, but not the same as the CHEER study (as southerndoc alluded to in another thread - who thinks of these names?) - "CHest pain Evaluation in the ER" - at Mt. Sinai (which showed that the evaluation in a chest pain unit was cost effective and efficient - and, yet, even so, the CPU in the MSH ED was closed down a year later anyway). So, the guy is playing it up, going great guns about that, and he says there was a great commentary in the NEJM about it - he then puts it up, and he wrote it! The funny thing is how he presented it, though - there was no false humility or bravado.
In any case, "chest pain unit"s come in various flavors - from the "hit the door, take all comers" types, where STEMI --> hyperventilation/minor trauma to thorax, to observational/23 to 47 hour, heparin and echo/stress testing, to various in-betweens. The problem arises when the "CPU/CEU/CDU" goes from "Chest Pain Unit/Clinical Evaluation Unit/Clinical Decision Unit" to "Can't Decide Unit".
