- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi folks,
I'm posting in hopes of getting some insight into neurology as a practice. I'm currently a student at the end of the third year and I'm having a hard time solidifying a choice. This isn't necessarily a problem as I have some additional time to really explore some specialties in medicine a bit more, but my experience at my home institution probably only offers a limited view of what each field has to offer, including neurology.
I know you all are a fan of the search function, so I'll preface my questions by saying that I've probably read almost every "is neurology for me?" related thread on the archives of SDN. What I haven't gotten a sense of yet from either reading the forums or my clerkship experience are the small details that distinguish day-to-day practice as an *in-patient focused neurologist* from other practices. Namely,
1. Is there a lot of stimulating case VARIETY? I ask this question because both on my general and consult services, the primary issue tends to be about altered mental status or seizure. Occasionally, there are some strange movement disorder related questions and headache, but most are AMS or seizure - and worse, we tend to not find answers for these patients and sit on them for a while.
2. On inpatient services do you see a lot of challenging and stimulating cases (that you eventually figure out)? I felt that I had to qualify this question because often I found that we DO get a lot of very interesting presentations, but it is just as frequent that we do not come to a convincing diagnosis. I know this can be argued for many other fields of medicine, even general IM, but it seems to be commonplace in neuro, particularly with all the encephalopathic patients.
3. Do you guys feel like you're making a significant difference in management that can positively affect outcomes, particularly as a consulting neurologist?
4. Does assessment of the patient with the neurologic complaint stay interesting? This one is a little vague, I know. But, from my (very) limited experience it often feels like CT/MRI imaging in neurology is so powerful that it often seems to take away the challenge of putting little pieces of the puzzle together to find the diagnosis which elegantly explains the patient's clinical presentation (which is something I found that I really like about IM).
Sorry for the somewhat long post, and I apologize if many of you will feel compelled to rehash what you've already told countless other students in the past, but I think your perspectives would be really helpful. Thanks.
I'm posting in hopes of getting some insight into neurology as a practice. I'm currently a student at the end of the third year and I'm having a hard time solidifying a choice. This isn't necessarily a problem as I have some additional time to really explore some specialties in medicine a bit more, but my experience at my home institution probably only offers a limited view of what each field has to offer, including neurology.
I know you all are a fan of the search function, so I'll preface my questions by saying that I've probably read almost every "is neurology for me?" related thread on the archives of SDN. What I haven't gotten a sense of yet from either reading the forums or my clerkship experience are the small details that distinguish day-to-day practice as an *in-patient focused neurologist* from other practices. Namely,
1. Is there a lot of stimulating case VARIETY? I ask this question because both on my general and consult services, the primary issue tends to be about altered mental status or seizure. Occasionally, there are some strange movement disorder related questions and headache, but most are AMS or seizure - and worse, we tend to not find answers for these patients and sit on them for a while.
2. On inpatient services do you see a lot of challenging and stimulating cases (that you eventually figure out)? I felt that I had to qualify this question because often I found that we DO get a lot of very interesting presentations, but it is just as frequent that we do not come to a convincing diagnosis. I know this can be argued for many other fields of medicine, even general IM, but it seems to be commonplace in neuro, particularly with all the encephalopathic patients.
3. Do you guys feel like you're making a significant difference in management that can positively affect outcomes, particularly as a consulting neurologist?
4. Does assessment of the patient with the neurologic complaint stay interesting? This one is a little vague, I know. But, from my (very) limited experience it often feels like CT/MRI imaging in neurology is so powerful that it often seems to take away the challenge of putting little pieces of the puzzle together to find the diagnosis which elegantly explains the patient's clinical presentation (which is something I found that I really like about IM).
Sorry for the somewhat long post, and I apologize if many of you will feel compelled to rehash what you've already told countless other students in the past, but I think your perspectives would be really helpful. Thanks.