- Joined
- May 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,179
- Reaction score
- 26
Coming off the interview trail I was reflecting on how many of my M4 colleagues had expressed an interest in "IEM." Correspondingly, at each program I visited we had varying degrees of discussion about IEM. There is a thread about overseas volunteering going on in another forum and it made me curious what the EM folks would have to say.
I'm not trying to be a flamer here, just to raise some discussion. If you have a real interest in IEM don't get all offended, just debate. Here are my opinions that I'd like to see supported or convincingly rebuffed:
1) Most international medical work involves an excessively large tourism component. Take away the digital cameras, side trips, and evening bar runs and interest would wane quickly.
2) Most (though certainly not all) international medical work is episodic, uncoordinated, and of questionable benefit to the populations served. Temporary clinics treating ambulatory complaints have the potential to cause great harm. An example published in a NEJM op-ed discussed a mother given vitamins for her infant who mistakenly thinks that vitamins are extremely potent medicine and in the future refuses to dose her child with antibiotics because a) vitamins are cheaper and b) she had previously received vitamins from impressive American physicians.
3) Emergency medicine as a specialty is relatively poorly suited for international work.
a) EPs have few special skills that lend themselves to low-resource situations. The practice environment of EPs in the United States involves frequent usage of highly technological imaging and diagnostics. The areas in which EPs are truly "specialists" include resuscitation, airway management, toxicology, and the initial management of trauma are low-yield skills in the international setting.
b) The difficult to define "resourcefulness" of the average emergency physician is unlikey to translate into special skills abroad.
c) Surgical/gynecological fields are far better suited for episodic international excursions. Primary care fields are better suited to longer term, health promotion activities.
4) It is unlikely that a "fellowship" in international emergency medicine conveys many specialized skills beyond the didactics of an integrated MPH. It would be exceedingly difficult to argue that IEM fellowship trained EPs were more effective in delivering international medical care than non-fellows.
5) The term "international emergency medicine" itself is at best problematic and at worst a complete misnomer.
a) The emergency physician overseas has no special role that could not be filled equally well by a family physician, med-peds physician or in the vast majority of cases an internist.
b) An "international emergency" needs a response that is almost completely public health based. Individual physicians in the aftermath of, say, another tsunami would likely contribute more by working with a shovel than with a stethoscope.
Let the games begin. 😀
I'm not trying to be a flamer here, just to raise some discussion. If you have a real interest in IEM don't get all offended, just debate. Here are my opinions that I'd like to see supported or convincingly rebuffed:
1) Most international medical work involves an excessively large tourism component. Take away the digital cameras, side trips, and evening bar runs and interest would wane quickly.
2) Most (though certainly not all) international medical work is episodic, uncoordinated, and of questionable benefit to the populations served. Temporary clinics treating ambulatory complaints have the potential to cause great harm. An example published in a NEJM op-ed discussed a mother given vitamins for her infant who mistakenly thinks that vitamins are extremely potent medicine and in the future refuses to dose her child with antibiotics because a) vitamins are cheaper and b) she had previously received vitamins from impressive American physicians.
3) Emergency medicine as a specialty is relatively poorly suited for international work.
a) EPs have few special skills that lend themselves to low-resource situations. The practice environment of EPs in the United States involves frequent usage of highly technological imaging and diagnostics. The areas in which EPs are truly "specialists" include resuscitation, airway management, toxicology, and the initial management of trauma are low-yield skills in the international setting.
b) The difficult to define "resourcefulness" of the average emergency physician is unlikey to translate into special skills abroad.
c) Surgical/gynecological fields are far better suited for episodic international excursions. Primary care fields are better suited to longer term, health promotion activities.
4) It is unlikely that a "fellowship" in international emergency medicine conveys many specialized skills beyond the didactics of an integrated MPH. It would be exceedingly difficult to argue that IEM fellowship trained EPs were more effective in delivering international medical care than non-fellows.
5) The term "international emergency medicine" itself is at best problematic and at worst a complete misnomer.
a) The emergency physician overseas has no special role that could not be filled equally well by a family physician, med-peds physician or in the vast majority of cases an internist.
b) An "international emergency" needs a response that is almost completely public health based. Individual physicians in the aftermath of, say, another tsunami would likely contribute more by working with a shovel than with a stethoscope.
Let the games begin. 😀