"Would Doctors Be Better If They Didn't Have To Memorize?" [NPR]

[Monkitty]

Thoughts on this? Krebs Cycle aside, I was curious that they mentioned the social determinants of health. Especially since that's something I've noticed DOs doing for a long time (maybe I was lucky in the DOs I've seen).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...tors-be-better-if-they-didnt-have-to-memorize

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm not too fond of the piece. Our specialty is medicine, not social work. The tools we are given by virtue of our brute-force memorization allow us to excel in any field. We learn biochemistry so that we can understand the medications we use and know what's going on should we ever end up in research or a biochem-heavy field like endocrinology. If we get rid of that insane base of knowledge, we will truly lose a great part of what makes a physician a physician, and will usher in a world in which nurses will be correct when they say they know just as much as us- they don't get into the gritty details and have a focus on working in teams and dealing with social workeresque tasks.

 

[songl4a]

.

 

[TheShowGoesOn]

I'm not too fond of the piece. Our specialty is medicine, not social work. The tools we are given by virtue of our brute-force memorization allow us to excel in any field. We learn biochemistry so that we can understand the medications we use and know what's going on should we ever end up in research or a biochem-heavy field like endocrinology. If we get rid of that insane base of knowledge, we will truly lose a great part of what makes a physician a physician, and will usher in a world in which nurses will be correct when they say they know just as much as us- they don't get into the gritty details and have a focus on working in teams and dealing with social workeresque tasks.

This. Coming from a nurse, I concur with the statement about nurses learning much less in terms of detail and focus on teamwork and socio-environmental health of patients. Physicians have to learn an excessive base of knowledge so that they are well-versed in every aspect of the medical field, they are doctors of medicine after all.

 

[Monkitty]

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of cutting out the details (at least I didn't read it that way), but to expand the knowledge to include more of the social dynamics. As he said, it took him 10 years to start asking about diet/food. That's something I feel should be baseline.

They way I read it, doctors should be more cognizant of these social determents, should investigate them more, and when relevant, should know the proper channels to go through to try to service those needs (connections with social workers, food banks, shelters, etc).

I think this piece is really saying we need more integration of social care into the medical team. The whole, "doctors shouldn't memorize" seems likely a poorly thought out angle/headline by some editor.

But maybe I'm giving the author too much credit.

 

[67552931811]

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of cutting out the details (at least I didn't read it that way), but to expand the knowledge to include more of the social dynamics. As he said, it took him 10 years to start asking about diet/food. That's something I feel should be baseline.

They way I read it, doctors should be more cognizant of these social determents, should investigate them more, and when relevant, should know the proper channels to go through to try to service those needs (connections with social workers, food banks, shelters, etc).

I think this piece is really saying we need more integration of social care into the medical team. The whole, "doctors shouldn't memorize" seems likely a poorly thought out angle/headline by some editor.

But maybe I'm giving the author too much credit.

^ I see you've already enjoyed your first sip of kool-aid.

 

[Monkitty]

Then enlighten me as to what exactly I drank.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I'm not too fond of the piece. Our specialty is medicine, not social work. The tools we are given by virtue of our brute-force memorization allow us to excel in any field. We learn biochemistry so that we can understand the medications we use and know what's going on should we ever end up in research or a biochem-heavy field like endocrinology. If we get rid of that insane base of knowledge, we will truly lose a great part of what makes a physician a physician, and will usher in a world in which nurses will be correct when they say they know just as much as us- they don't get into the gritty details and have a focus on working in teams and dealing with social workeresque tasks.

you need physiology to understand endocrinology, not biochemistry. Number of people who care that GH-receptors use the tyrosine kinase system? zero. That's real biochemistry, albeit extremely superficial, because it's just a factoid. Real biochemistry would talk about concentrations of growth hormone needed to reach threshold, the kinetics of the tyrosine kinase system, the binding capacities of the GH-receptor and how the cell is able to alter it. Learning real biochemistry enables you to ask pointed research questions. We learn trivia and just like trivia, it's forgotten within a few weeks after learning unless one is deeply invested in the subject. It's learning that Mickey Mantle hit 17 home runs in his first 25 games and saying this tidbit is essential to understanding baseball.

When you get to 3rd year and beyond, you'll understand how much time was wasted in the first 2 years, solely for the purpose of stratifying students on Step 1. The clinicians teaching us medicine didn't even know 70% of the basic sciences existed when they were training. And yet they are the standard of care today.

Looking back at the first 2 years, I'd say knowing physiology, anatomy, microbiology, pharmacology, and pathology/pathophys are what really matters. The rest? Just junk material designed to make med school harder than it has to be.

 

[Mad Jack]

you need physiology to understand endocrinology, not biochemistry. Number of people who care that GH-receptors use the tyrosine kinase system? zero. That's real biochemistry, albeit extremely superficial, because it's just a factoid. Real biochemistry would talk about concentrations of growth hormone needed to reach threshold, the kinetics of the tyrosine kinase system, the binding capacities of the GH-receptor and how the cell is able to alter it. Learning real biochemistry enables you to ask pointed research questions. We learn trivia and just like trivia, it's forgotten within a few weeks after learning unless one is deeply invested in the subject. It's learning that Mickey Mantle hit 17 home runs in his first 25 games and saying this tidbit is essential to understanding baseball.

When you get to 3rd year and beyond, you'll understand how much time was wasted in the first 2 years, solely for the purpose of stratifying students on Step 1. The clinicians teaching us medicine didn't even know 70% of the basic sciences existed when they were training. And yet they are the standard of care today.

Looking back at the first 2 years, I'd say knowing physiology, anatomy, microbiology, pharmacology, and pathology/pathophys are what really matters. The rest? Just junk material designed to make med school harder than it has to be.

I guess it's hard for me to say anything feels "worthless" because I've got an integrated curriculum. Without individual classes to hate on, and with only the pertinent stuff to each given system being presented, everything feels much more relevant and it becomes very difficult to say what is unnecessary.

 

[Goro]

Memorization is one, but it's not enough to learn; you have to be able to apply your knowledge!

And like it or not, there are some 5000 human body parts you have to learn about, and what they do.

Thoughts on this? Krebs Cycle aside, I was curious that they mentioned the social determinants of health. Especially since that's something I've noticed DOs doing for a long time (maybe I was lucky in the DOs I've seen).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...tors-be-better-if-they-didnt-have-to-memorize

 

[phenobb]

you need physiology to understand endocrinology, not biochemistry. Number of people who care that GH-receptors use the tyrosine kinase system? zero. That's real biochemistry, albeit extremely superficial, because it's just a factoid. Real biochemistry would talk about concentrations of growth hormone needed to reach threshold, the kinetics of the tyrosine kinase system, the binding capacities of the GH-receptor and how the cell is able to alter it. Learning real biochemistry enables you to ask pointed research questions. We learn trivia and just like trivia, it's forgotten within a few weeks after learning unless one is deeply invested in the subject. It's learning that Mickey Mantle hit 17 home runs in his first 25 games and saying this tidbit is essential to understanding baseball.

When you get to 3rd year and beyond, you'll understand how much time was wasted in the first 2 years, solely for the purpose of stratifying students on Step 1. The clinicians teaching us medicine didn't even know 70% of the basic sciences existed when they were training. And yet they are the standard of care today.

Looking back at the first 2 years, I'd say knowing physiology, anatomy, microbiology, pharmacology, and pathology/pathophys are what really matters. The rest? Just junk material designed to make med school harder than it has to be.

I think part of this depends on the quality of the clinician that you deal with. Have to say that it sounds like the clinicians teaching you just aren't very good.

Have had lots of discussions, particularly with oncology mentioning downstream receptors and their mechanism.

There's a difference between standard of care and GOOD care. If all you desire is standard of care, you can just have nurses filling out those stupid checklists that every hospital has now. CHF checklist, Afib checklist, Post MI checklist, DVT checklist, PE checklist, CVA checklist etc.