Not gone, just got my posts removed. I think my initial argument understandably got lost in the 10 layers of sarcasm I used. What spurred me to keep arguing is the notion that EM is
better at a procedure than specialists just because something is emergent. EM trained doctors are very competent in basically everything they do, but that doesn't mean they are the
best at everything they do. I haven't done my EM rotation yet but I did work in multiple EDs before med school and spoke to a lot of EM-trained attendings about this exact topic, or at least I was a fly on the wall while they discussed this with EM residents, off-service residents, med students, etc. Why did this topic come up to much? EM loves procedures and shooting the **** and discussing this is a way to do both. The consensus among 10+ attendings who trained at a variety of respected programs was this:
1A - EM is the undisputed best of many things, including but not limited to: medical resuscitation of the undifferentiated patient, diagnosis of the undifferentiated patient (especially when really sick), POCUS (at most places)
1B - the disputed best of ("challenger" field in parenthesis): emergent airway (anesthesia)*, running codes (critical care)
2A - the undisputed second best of (1st best in parenthesis): reading EKGs (cards), trauma resuscitation (trauma/general surgery), chest tubes (CT/trauma/general surgery), surgical airway (ENT), ED thoracotomy (CT/trauma/general surgery), LP (neuro/IR), fractures/dislocations (ortho), procedural sedation (anesthesia)
2B - the disputed second best of (undisputed 1st then "challenger" field in parenthesis): vaginal deliveries (OB, FM), anything pediatric (peds/PEM, FM), art lines/central lines (anesthesia, critical care)
Honorable mentions: loads of knowledge about literally every field in medicine ("best 20 minutes of every specialty")
*this one was particularly controversial among EM attendings and anesthesiologists so don't kill me
This list is not at all comprehensive of the many things EM can do at a high level. You all might disagree with what went where, but we can all agree that being the best or the 2nd/3rd best in medicine at so many skills is incredibly impressive. ED docs do things from 1A to 2B all the time and do a great job. (I lumped trauma and general surgery together a few times because, at least at my institution, all of the trauma attendings say that a general surgery resident should graduate being able to handle trauma call in a community setting).
Sarcasm and aggressiveness aside, I still don't buy that the 3 sim-lab crics an EM doc did in their residency is enough to be more proficient than an ENT who cut into peoples necks for 5 years of residency alone. Yes, a planned trach is a different procedure than a cric, but it is not like ENTs just do planned trachs and never mess around with anything else in the neck. They have seen more HENT anatomical variation and have mastered anterior neck landmarks better than any EM doctor could ever hope to. That isn't a knock on EM, that is just the nature of medicine and specialization.
Your arguments are pretty specious, and could be made for almost every procedure we do. Perhaps we should have plastics do every lac repair, ortho do every reduction, cards read every ekg, surgery see every belly pain, peds see every kid, and im see everything else.
Saying cards should read every ekg, surgery should see every ab pain, etc is a straw man argument and something I never said. EM doesn't need to consult for every issue in the ED, but that doesn't mean they are gods of any procedure in the ED either. EM can reduce the vast majority of shoulder dislocations without help, but if you can't get a shoulder back in, are you really going to call in another ED doc over ortho? Are you going to call another ED doc for a second opinion on an iffy EKG or would you call cards? If your kid had a lac and you could choose between an ED doc and a plastic surgeon suturing it, who would you chose? Now, the counter-argument is that it is not practical or necessary for EM to call in a specialist anytime a specialist
could help. I agree with that, but let's remember the context. I initially replied to a situation where EM and gen surg were both already in the trauma bay, ready to help.
Every ED doc told rotating med students some variation of this next line when they were asked about pros/cons of EM: "it is an awesome field, but you have to be ok with being a jack of all trades and a master of a few." I am paraphrasing but having that experience in real life and then coming on to this forum to see EM docs claim to be the best in the business at everything they do makes me feel like I am banging my head against the wall.
Why does it even matter if EM is or isn't the best at things if they are competent? I would never have said something if the original commenter hadn't done as many or more ED thoracotomies than a newly minted trauma surgeon. I can understand that EM needs to get experience with ED thoracotomies and I will walk back what I said about "a surgeon should crack a chest if they are in the room." By that logic, no medical student or resident would ever get training because the procedure would go to the most experienced person. But the comment I replied to heavily implied that trauma/general surgery was actively kept away from supervising ED thoracotomies. In my opinion, that is a dangerous turf war that is appropriate to call out. Probably should not be called out in the way I did it, but it isn't unreasonable to comment that it is a bad situation for everyone involved, especially the patient.