Little that is said here is likely to alter opinions, but in the interests of common sense:
Originally posted by RADRULES
Reminds me of the neurologist at my old institution who thought he could read MRIs, until he got toasted by a lawsuit.
And what do you imagine most of the physicians who get sued for misreading films trained as?
As a (wannabe?) radiologist, I'm sure you know that virtually all physicians who get sued for purported radiological mistakes are, surprise, your friendly neighborhood board-certified radiologists (ie., people who went through, at least, a radiology residency)
Many of these sued radiologists may, in fact, be incompetent. However, I would wager that most are good physicians who do an excellent job most of the time - but made the rare mistake that led to the lawsuit.
Implying that a physician who gets sued cannot be competent, or that a competent physician will never get sued, is, quite simply, stupid. Lawsuit toasting or lack therof is not a perfect arbiter of competence.
Competence, ultimately, is demonstrated in practice. If, for example, a radiologist can read 100,000 brain MRIs and produce the correct diagnosis in 99,999 cases, but gets sued for that one missed diagnosis, I would not consider him incompetent to read brain MRIs. Would you? Likewise, a neurologist who can do the same, however he may do it, is not incompetent to read brain MRIs, in my book.
Originally posted by RADRULES
Neurology is really a weak specialty...
I do not know how one decides that an entire specialty, a whole tradition of learning, is 'weak'; the arrogance (ignorance?) of one who could pass such judgements on entire specialties is impressive. As a non-neurologist, I have never had occasion to think in such terms of my colleagues in the specialty - or any other, for that matter.
A paper published some 4-5 years ago in JAMA makes interesting, if chastening, reading for young punks in rays.
The paper looked at the performance of three groups of physicians (ER docs, General Radiologists, and Neurologists) in reading acute stroke CTs. All physicians were tested on the same films, which consisted of scans classified a priori as easy, moderate, and difficult. The task was to r/o hemmorhage, which is clinically relevant with the current use of thrombolytics.
Of the easy bleeds, the neurologists and genrads got 100% of their reads correct. ERPs scored something like 90%.
For the difficult bleeds, ERPs scored only ~50% (it was a terribly low sensitivity figure). Neurologists and Gen rads both scored 80%.
Considering that the neurologists and ERPs were doing something that all radiologists consider "their turf", and each of whom they purport get at least five years residency training to do, I thought the Neuros' performance showed some little bit of talent. I imagine you'd consider them 'weak' of course.
However, your arrogance is quite entertaining so...carry on!
