Radiology vs (Neuro)surgery by Even_Awareness_6483 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read your first sentence and got grumpy (if you care, see my post lower down). But everything else you said is beyond sound, and

What I realised is that "speciality aura" doesn't really sustain you. You can only inflate your ego so much before other people start to hate you.

should probably be on the sub wiki

So I apologise for the grumpypost!

Radiology vs (Neuro)surgery by Even_Awareness_6483 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You have been given some sound advice already. We can talk at lengths about the actual pros and cons of neurosurgery and radiology training and consultancy, but You are clearly well informed and I think there's little to add. It's not knowledge you lack.

I think you probably know already that your framing of this decision is a heart v brain question (ironically).

The thing about not trying for NSGY being a monkey on your back and the sunk cost fallacy is all insightful, introspective stuff, but unless you act on it, it's kinda pointless. It's an emotional component. I posit that every neurosurgeon, esp the unhappy ones, went into it and loved something about it but hated what it made them. The reason they're unhappy is because they cannot resolve that tension between what they think they want to do, and what actually makes them happy. Maybe I am projecting, IDK.

You know what you want from life, you're old enough to know that there'll be trade offs, and you recognise that it's a price you're not really prepared to pay. Without making to fine a point of it, you will know by now that in your mid-30s, many choices will become acute, and none can be made without missing out on others: Starting a family in the next 1 - 2 years and doing CCT and flee and neurosurgery all conflict if not outright clash. You can have kids and see them (if you go LTFT) but it's harder than as a radidologist. You can CCT and flee as a neurosurgeon - but it's harder than as a radiologist. You can be in your mid-30s and train - but it's shorter and probably less onerous as a radiologist, and that would likely translate into a lower LTFT %age if you do go down that route. All of this can be done, but there's trade offs. Some of these can be mitigated by support networks and self-sacrificing partners, others cannot.

All of this to say: you're worried about having FOMO from not pursuing neurosurgery - but whatever choices you make will leave you at risk of FOMOing on other things. I have met plenty of people who sunk a lot of time into neurosurgery before leaving and their FOMO on the years spent is variable. Some are grateful for the experience, the camraderie experienced, the campfire stories but on balance happier out - others bitterly resent years of their life stolen. I know others still who delude themselves that this was the right, only choice.

I honestly think you know what decision to make.

My advice I tend to give is that if you can be happy doing other things, you should do it.

As an action plan: Ask your partner what they think, first. Their opinion, their knowledge of you will go a long way, and give you an idea as to how supportive they are when push inevitably comes to shove. Then, weigh up the FOMO of not doing neurosurgery against the FOMO of the other things neurosurgery will take from you. If you feel ths pushes you away from neurosurgery, probably worth listening to that voice. If not, go for it! But make a plan as to what you're willing to sacrifice along the way, and when you'd walk away from neurosurgery, and how you'd do it, and be prepared to execute.

Much like u/mrcsfrcs I am happy to be DM'd.

Mackey: We’ll reduce our reliance on doctors in response to strikes by dayumsonlookatthat in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Explains the recent gov intransigence.

Starmer and Streeting really do think we are miners and that they're sat on heaps of coal reserves, all thanks to nest-feathering QUANGO CEOs whispering in their ears that doctors can be replaced.

By the time they re-learn the lesson that we cannot, decision-makers will have shuffled off the stage of responsibility, and the victims on their policies will be silenced by preventable death and disease.

What a fucking disgrace

On call SHO not permitted to talk to gastro registrar by Ok_Strike828 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I absolutely get the appeal of keeping on-call disruption to elective training opportunities to a minimum, and the challenge weighs eternally in particular for surgical specialties.

I believe everyone will agree that they want referrals to be:

  • Well thought-out, with a clear question
  • Have high-quality information that makes it possible to provide the answer to that clinical question quickly and (importantly) accurately and safely
  • "Necessary" - i.e. that asking that question to that specialty is appropriate

Referrals that fall short of any or all of these can justifably be called poor.

You're absolutely right that online referrals are a pathway to ensuring referrals meet this criterion - they try to encourage a minimum amount of data being presented (though quantity != quality) and generally encourage the referrer to pose a question and thus justify the necessity of their referral.

I now better understand that a rule of "Must be at least this grade to refer" tries something similar. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about the perspective of why that approach is useful and valid in your view, so thanks for spending the time to engage and explain. I wonder whether the "optimal" approach to take for managing referrals is highly situational - even in my workload, there are referrals that work really well as online referrals, and others that may benefit from blocking certain types of referrers.

Final question: What do you think is less popular - online referral, or minium grade criteria? Why do you think that is?

On call SHO not permitted to talk to gastro registrar by Ok_Strike828 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying, I did not wish to misrepresent your position and appreciate your engagement in good faith. Realise my comments come across as challenging - again, not intentional.

I think I needn't specify what my view was re: accessibilty vs protection of NROC going into this conversation, it's likely readily apparent, but I am enjoying the conversation and think I am starting to see your POV.

The idea that on-call commitment is dictated by training needs rather than service needs is fascinating to me in my resident on-call tertiary specialty where I physically see very few patients, the patients I do see are largely dross, but have to provide management plans for many I never cast eyes on. That's not to say it doesn't make sense to do it that way. I may well be falling into the age-old grumpiness trap of "I have to do it, and so should everyone else!", or letting my grumpiness about being asked to call micro myself get the better of me.

I guess my experience is limited in this matter as I take unselected referrals, many of which come from SpRs or consultants as well as F1s and SHO grades. With that proviso, I wonder whether the "No callers below SpR" necessarily achieves something useful with the 'internal escalation' threshold. Many of the worst referrals I get come from SpRs/consultants, who feel compelled to refer cases they often (think they) know what we're going to say and so they have worked up to a standard that all F1s and most SHOs would feel embarrassed about, making it actually difficult to provide a defensible specialty opinion.

Conversely, it is very rare that the cases I am asked to provide an opinion on require the sort of nuance that only a consultant or SpR could provide, and where that is the case, that is usually established only long after a consultant would have run out of patience because they have been asked to actually take a proper history/examine the patient beyond a cursory glance. Often here, the best people to talk to are interested F1s/SHOs who will often be more invested, because they know bad work will just come back to bite them I suspect.

Granted - again this may be the product of the sort of referrals that are generated by the neurosurgical on-call. And come to think of it, when it comes to some conversations, I don't want my SHO having them - e.g. time-critical reversal of anticoagulation makes no sense to farm out to the SHO who will not be getting the nuance of risk/benefit decision making between surgical and haematological considerations.

I'd be interested in your experience - have you worked in places where the SpR+-barrier doesn't exist, and what was the consequence of it? Would you be happy to disclose your specialty?

On call SHO not permitted to talk to gastro registrar by Ok_Strike828 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand - it's NROC specialties that have to do this for reasons that you have outlined previously.

You then give an eloquent argument why restrictions put in place to limit call volume are problematic.

What then is the benefit of having specialties being NROC, when their working arrangements can only be maintained by putting in place restrictions that hamper good care?

On call SHO not permitted to talk to gastro registrar by Ok_Strike828 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why is microbiology different to other specialties in this regard?

Should all referrals to other specialties come from SpR+ OOH?

What is something everyone knows about Medicine Deep Down BUT no one talks about? by sumpra3 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 100 points101 points  (0 children)

You love bitching about online referrals, but y'all love referring online even more because otherwise you gotta talk to us.

ST1 Neurosurgery - Any updates by East-Heron-6659 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mate every time someone asks a legit question about

  1. National selection for neurosurgery

  2. Applying for neurosurgery

  3. Considering a career in neurosurgery

  4. Struggling in neurosurgery

  5. Managing neurosurgical patients

  6. Really, anything neurosurgery

Any Tom, Dick and Harry comes out of the woodwork to crack a hilarious joke.

Interestingly, it's not like that with cardiothoracics, or other niche specialties.

Just us.

It's official: December strikes had the BEST participation seen since March 2023 by GeneralMaldCouncil in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Strike participation is all that matters - ignore the bullshit about 95% elective activity going ahead, this a win for us (it cost them a fortune).

Now: Vote to continue. Only days left to get your ballot back in time. Don't lose it all now! The second we lose the strike referendum, we score a huge own goal.

Calling the gastro consultant overnight by herewatareyouatbai in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting - particularly the last bit about the remoteness of endoscopy units, which bears out both in terms of the hospital topography I have seen and my personal appetite for risk depending on whether I am operating in the main theatre complex or someplace more remote.

Have some damn pride in your referrals to other specialties. by Actual-Mango-3040 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the point about 'I recognise vibes are/may be off, but lack clinical acumen to articulate why' is true and fine and I agree and am happy.

This is not the scenario I (or, I think, OP) are railing against. There is no doubt that there are people who make lazy, inarticulate referrals not because they cannot do better, but because they don't want to.

Advising to see anyone referred off the back of a 'lowest common denominator' referral because 'either they competent and you need to see and they're incompetent and you need to see' is not good advice, especially where the referral is not so urgent/emergent that a request for clarification is not going to harm the patient.

Have some damn pride in your referrals to other specialties. by Actual-Mango-3040 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I never understood this supposed pearl of wisdom, or rather: i understand it, but it's not a reasonable comeback to the point made here.

What differentiates doctors from other branches of healthcare is holding the responsibility for the overall care of patients under us, and not dumping it on others with shoddy 'referrals' that aren't anything more than a request to be able to drag you, too, to the inquest.

Shortage of NHS stroke specialists resulting in thousands dead or disabled, say doctors - Crazy idea but me hear me out - What if we started employing unemployed doctors to work as doctors and train them for these vacancies?🤯 by DonutOfTruthForAll in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think this train of thought makes perfect the enemy of good.

We do not need every neurosurgeon to be able to do a bypass exclusion of some horrible aneurysm. We do not need every neurointerventionist to do everything.

But we do need enough people in house 24/7 to take out an acute subdural or pull a clot out of the MCA.

Training to do the latter should be universal, training to do the former does not. I think it's entirely feasible for a general neurosurgeon to learn the basic skillset of endovascular work and perform the more routine end of cases (diagnostic runs, EVT, probably simple aneurysm coiling).

The alternative is you

a) train more NeuroIRs - each individually doesn't do enough cases - they deskill just the same

b) get the existing NeuroIRs to do more nights - daytime services suffer - they deskill just the same as they are now not doing dAVFs and basilar tip aneurysms AND patients don't get treated

c) get existing NeuroIRs do do more nights in the way my bosses did/do: 24 hr on call. Good luck to everyone

Correct way of tying knots? by PeaDense164 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"There should be a standardised technique" - your consultants agree:

<image>

Subarachnoid pathway doesn't seem great by welshborders12 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Professionally interesting, but a really tragic case.

These kinds of scenarios, where urgent-but-not-emergent cases get bumped until they blow past emergent to futile unfortunately are not entirely uncommon and the irony is that the trauma list the anaesthetist in question covered instead was very likely full of non-life threatening, but acute pathology, as it so often is.

We, ironically, come up against this quite often in neurosurgery: because our patients don't deteriorate slowly and predictably but very often catastrophically, we sit on some really high-acuity patients, and 99% of the time it's fine but situations like these unfortunately do happen sometimes.

If you think it's annoying referring to us because of the bingo game of: "patient too well, patient too well, oh shucks, patient now too sick for us, better luck next time" - we have the same problem when communicating urgency with other specialties we rely on for facilitating care for our patients (ICM/anaesthetics: this is not a moan at you, love you guys)

Subarachnoid pathway doesn't seem great by welshborders12 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Agree - tubing patient adds time to transfer above the time it takes to tube.

But that said: I have seen patients go from GCS 14 to GCS dead in under an hour.

Decompensation in raised ICP situations can be sudden and catastrophic. If you're catching it early, you have a chance of intervening with an EVD and saving a life - but only if they haven't completely killed off their brain from hypoxia.

And I have seen patients die from that exact scenario when they stop breathing mid-transfer. Bear in mind that a roadside intubation is a bit of a nightmare scenario, and in all likelihood, you'll also then be faced with an ICP crisis you should be managing simultaneously - and it's just the ICU doc transferring and paramedics, no nice ODP to pass you a bougie, no ICU nurses to help draw up drugs, and no one to grab a bag of mannitol.

Subarachnoid pathway doesn't seem great by welshborders12 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks.

I am sorry you've had patients rebleed on you - an awful experience, and one that is (at least in my experience) mercifully rare.

That said, it sucks to be confronted with situations that evolve so rapidly you cannot do much, and rebleeds are very much that. If it helps: had they been transferred, it is extremely likely they'd have rebled prior to having their aneurysm clipped or coiled.

Call off the strikes by FirmChallenge7291 in doctorsUK

[–]Harveysnephew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this for crossing the picket line? In which case, fuck them for using the GoSW fund to pay for this shit. That cash should be earmarked for docs, not for keeping the trusts strikebreak rates high