Choosing speciality: IM/Neuro/EM

[RaraBovis]

---
I don't know what to choose. I'm usually know what I want, but this time it's different.

Should I stick to ..Neuro..even though I feel it can really get lame sometimes..or switch loyalties and go with IM(Cardio). It won't prolly be EM for me 'cause you need to be in a set-up always...I mean, you can't be a stand-alone consultant..if you know what I'm saying. So..any insights on the issue? Maybe Neuro's different in the US- really thrilling and action-packed..with gratifying outcomes (highly doubt)...? I need to decide and decide fast. Any words of wisdom?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PistolPete]

I'm just a med student, but I think most would agree that "thrilling and action-packed" doesn't exactly go with neuro. If that's what's really important to you, then go for cardio.

Just my 0.02.

 

[oreosandsake]

cardiology is pretty hard to get in to.

consider wisely before choosing

 

[PMPMD]

Neuro-critical care is a field that seems to be in demand right now. It would give you neuro with the CCM side of EM, and a good amount of medicine too.

 

[ccfccp]

I can't think of two more diametrically opposed specialties (with the above mentioned exception of neuro CC) than EM and neuro. Sure we deal with several acute neuro issues (CVA, occasional myasthenic crisis, MS flare, etc.) but that is pretty much Wham, Bam, and you're out (or admitted as the case may be.) It seems like the mindsets are completely different. Most of neuro (from my ignorant perspective) seems to deal with a lot more chronic stuff and management of chronic issues that really don't have a cure, but the debilitation can be abrogated.

 

[Mattchiavelli]

It depends on what country you're coming from- I know in some Neurology is more like what in the US is geriatrics, and a lit of the acute CVA stuff gets handled by IM.

In theory, EM and non-critical non-acute neuro seem opposite... until you do some work in EM and realize there are a lot of non-emergencies that show up to the ED