So, I'm just a student (or a stud, depending on the local nomenclature), but the seven asterisks plus the "s" makes for a very provocative extra fifty points, at least. Pray, do tell the vowels or consonants in your descriptor!
This thread dovetails so perfectly with the most recently available episode of "It's always sunny in philadelphia" on Hulu.
In all seriousness though, the old "garbage in, garbage out" adage is apropos everywhere in medicine. I respect those people who have a differential not only for the data but for the possible causes of spurious numbers. I have seen people get excited about all kinds of numbers without examining their provenance, whether it is a jenky A-line, a poorly floated Swan, an illegitimate CVP or a units-free bladder pressure. The most recent worst offender I am thinking about is bladder pressures in the ICU when the attending (not an anesthesiologist!) is too impatient to differentiate between cm of H2O and mm of Hg. Thankfully, the patient did not get cut, but the table was set. Thank goodness for a conscientious surg consult service.
As far as I have been able to observe, the "anal anesthesiologist" can be excused when he/she is able to make good decisions quickly because possible sources of erroneous information were eliminated by meticulous set-up. Any additional pain I suffer from supervisors' critique I chalk up to my own ignorance of the importance of the incremental aspects of practice.
