If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   As far as modern doctor's instruments go, the stethoscope is starting to be as useful as leech tongs and clysters   (mnn.com) divider line 12
    More: Interesting, Measuring instrument, stethoscopes, Mount Sinai School of Medicine  
•       •       •

4400 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 2:19 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-25 11:06:38 AM  
6 votes:
This article makes my head hurt. The stupid burns.

"Many authors have argued that ultrasound has become the stethoscope of the 21st century," Narula said. However, it is not found in every doctor's pocket because of its price, typically running from $8,000 to $10,000.

 Yeah. A high end, electronic amplification stethoscope that can not only hear a faint grade I murmur, but record it for you to review on your computer is like under 500 bucks.

"Medical students are now using it. We are training them with ultrasounds in the first years of medical school," Narula said.

Why does someone need to break out an ultrasound machine to listen to breath sounds? To confirm tube placement in intubation or NG/OG tube procedures? Why do I need it to confirm that my albuterol/atrovent is working, or that they're moving air well? A doctor doesn't need ultrasound to identify a pneumo/hemo.

Ultrasounds are great for placing a PICC or difficult IV access. They save radiation exposure in babies who have head trauma or are premature and need checked for a bleed. They can be lifesaving in rapid trauma exams.

But to say they'll replace stethoscopes? At the risk of sounding like QA - that's stupid.
2014-01-25 02:32:37 PM  
4 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Let's replace a simple, cheap, easy to use technology with one that's expensive, harder to use and requires continuous maintenance.

Sounds like the American Way.


Bingo!  "News" article brought to you by the company that makes the machine that goes, "ping!"

A medical professional can still diagnose plenty with a stethoscope and rule out the need for more expensive test and procedures.  It's called practicing medicine and understanding diagnostics.  It also requires medical professionals to, shudder, touch their patients.
2014-01-25 02:29:05 PM  
4 votes:
I work at a hospital. Docs I talk to say they can tell a lot about a patient's heart and lungs by listening with a stethoscope.
2014-01-25 02:50:18 PM  
3 votes:
Stethoscopes aren't going anywhere. Too simple and useful - it'd be like declaring the hammer obsolete. Sure, there are faster, cooler, and better ways to get the nails where you want them, but hammers still get used.

We rely far too much on the huge infrastructure we've built up in American medicine. Old cardiologists can diagnose stuff with their ears that the younger fellows need ECHO's for. The physical exam skills of a well trained neurologist trying to localize a lesion are nothing short of breathtaking if you know what you're watching. My generation simply orders the MRI. We're not as good as the guys who came before us in terms of examining the patients. Evidence based medicine and the internet and all the hardware and advancing knowledge are good things bringing about better outcomes, but if the power goes out, we're boned.
2014-01-25 02:30:48 PM  
3 votes:
FTA: s the stethoscope going extinct?

Answer: No.

If the answer to your headline is "No", don't bother writing the article.
2014-01-25 02:28:33 PM  
3 votes:
Let's replace a simple, cheap, easy to use technology with one that's expensive, harder to use and requires continuous maintenance.

Sounds like the American Way.
2014-01-25 07:17:30 AM  
3 votes:
No. It's going to hang around as a vestigial vestment of the profession. Much like gavels for officers of the court.
2014-01-25 08:48:20 PM  
1 votes:
I've applied and removed leeches before; for some reason, none of the other nurses didn't want to do it. Hell, I didn't want to do it. The worse part is if the leeches get full before you go in there to pull them off, they detach and start wandering around. I've pulled chunks of gray matter off of my scrubs on more than one occasion, but I almost tossed my cookies when I stepped on a blood-bloated leech and it went "pop!" under my shoe. Ugh.

And stethoscopes aren't going anywhere; 50 years from now nurses and doctors are still going to be walking around with our "ears" hanging around our necks.
2014-01-25 04:51:19 PM  
1 votes:

JPINFV: You can use the same lubricating gel that you already have on the ambulance for things like NPAs if need be.


it's the need for gel that bothers me. my cardiologist listened to my chest last visit through my shirt. was this the best possible way to do it? perhaps not but given my current condition (COPD not heart disease) it was sufficient. and a lot quicker and cheaper than my getting half undressed, smeared with gel, ultra wanded, cleaned up and redressed.

i do equipment repair, i'm not using a several hundred dollar diagnostic tool it i can tell using a <$20 multimeter.
2014-01-25 04:41:53 PM  
1 votes:
Hahahahahaha, this article reads like a sales pitch. No, portable ultrasound will not replace stethoscopes. What a joke.
2014-01-25 02:54:53 PM  
1 votes:
One step closer to the Star Trek tricorder!

s17.postimg.org

"He's DEAD, Jim."
2014-01-25 12:46:10 PM  
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: This article makes my head hurt. The stupid burns.

"Many authors have argued that ultrasound has become the stethoscope of the 21st century," Narula said. However, it is not found in every doctor's pocket because of its price, typically running from $8,000 to $10,000.

 Yeah. A high end, electronic amplification stethoscope that can not only hear a faint grade I murmur, but record it for you to review on your computer is like under 500 bucks.

"Medical students are now using it. We are training them with ultrasounds in the first years of medical school," Narula said.

Why does someone need to break out an ultrasound machine to listen to breath sounds? To confirm tube placement in intubation or NG/OG tube procedures? Why do I need it to confirm that my albuterol/atrovent is working, or that they're moving air well? A doctor doesn't need ultrasound to identify a pneumo/hemo.

Ultrasounds are great for placing a PICC or difficult IV access. They save radiation exposure in babies who have head trauma or are premature and need checked for a bleed. They can be lifesaving in rapid trauma exams.

But to say they'll replace stethoscopes? At the risk of sounding like QA - that's stupid.


billing for an ultrasound procedure > "breathe in .... breathe out"
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report