medic0surgeon

My mother in law (who has now passed) had skin cancer many many years ago and recieved radiation as a treatment. Later in life she developed lukemia as a direct result of the radiation. She was asked by a family member if she was angry because of the this and her response was "No it gave me an extra 25 years in this world and I was able to meet my grandchildren" To me that just says it all.

I can respect that. I just wish there was a better way to handle that situation so that she didn't have to go though that again. . . you know?

This issue is even bigger than the standard clinical studies that generate exposure to radiation. In recent years there has been a surge in things like heart scans and body scans to check for potential problems. People can pay a few bucks, without a prescription, and get to see all the plaque building up in their bodies- both harmless and harmful.

The problem will only get worse unless we get a handle on it.

It's easy to get lost in the details and forget about the big picture - until the big picture smacks you in the face; by then it's usually too late and the ball rolls down the hill indefinitely.

Not having the CT Scan can be more risky than having it, especially if cancer is suspected. The risks and benefit must be weighed. I would rather have confirmation of something in my head, chest or abdomen before undergoing the knife. For a cardiac check up I would rather have CT Angiography than a Cardiac Cath. For piece of mind, I would like to know my headache post fall is not a subdural bleed. The risk of the effects of radiation is worth that.

Yes, there are times when the CT Scan might be used excessively but that is usually for the ICU patient who may have 2 scans a day for several days. Of course, someone always justifies why each are necessary.

Also, as a health care provider over the years in various patient care settings, I have worn the radiation badge to see how much I have been zapped with inadvertently. Now that is a concern and maybe more studies should be done on those in health care from various expenses to radiation, radioactive material and chemo meds as well as all the other medication and gas exposure in the work environments. Some CCT and Flight crews are exposed to some of these in close quarters of their vehicles almost weekly. What are the long term health effects? Now that is a study I would like to see.

***

I agree. I would never refuse it to someone who could potentially benefit from it, but when do we take a look at the big picture and think about how much radiation we are throwing into the mass public? To what extent are we manipulating genetics further down the line?

i was looking through the picture gallery and came up on this pic. Is this a violation of hippa or not?

1. This person is dead and therefore not a patient; not sure if it would have anything to do with hippa.

2. Once the picture is on the internet, if there is no accompanying copyright tags, rights to the picture are lost.

I subscribe to an online medical journal and receive daily articles. Today's article is very interesting, especially to those hoping to become (or already are) doctors.

"December 17, 2009 — Computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used and are an invaluable tool for medical imaging. However, the possible overuse of CT scans and the variability in radiation doses might subsequently lead to thousands of cases of cancer, according to findings from 2 new studies published in the December 14/28 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. . .

Researchers estimated future cancer risks from current CT scan use in the United States, and projected that 29,000 future cancers will be directly attributable to CT scans that were performed in 2007. It is expected that the majority of these projected cancers will be caused by scans of the abdomen and pelvis (n = 14,000), chest (n = 4100), and head (n = 4000), and by CT coronary angiography (n = 2700)."

What do you think about this. I would love to hear opinions.

~Sam

Every state is a bit different. I have held a certification in 4 states and each time I had to get reciprocity was like pulling teeth. Most state run organizations are slow and not overly helpful. It took me 4 months to get reciprocity in Delaware and Pennsylvania and 3 months to get reciprocity in Texas.

The best thing to do is to gain certification in the state you want to live in. Transferring certifications state-t-state is difficult and stressful.

I was speaking with a paramedic recently who mentioned a practice common at the children's hospital: using glucose paste (or maybe sucrose, if that makes any difference) as a mild analgesic for babies and toddlers. Apparently there isn't any literature on the matter, although I've not looked myself, but its common practice.

Anyone heard of this/seen this/ done this before? Opinions?

When you say "Glucose as an analgesic," in what way is it used? What is the route of delivery or even the indications?

We were having a discussion in the chatroom about the techniques of intubating a patient. We have all been taught to hold the scope in our left hands, but could you hold it in your right hand and get the same effects as you do your left? I am running on Sunday or suspose to anyway so I am going to try it. Just wondering if you all have any thoughts on this.

Edited by me so I can clarify I wont be trying it on a live person....lol

***

The laryngoscope blade is designed to be held in the left hand, due to that fact that most people are right handed and need to be able to easily control the ET tube with the right (and more dominate) hand. I'm sure it's do-able; just not sure how safe it is. .. ~S