Saturday, July 23, 2011

Another rotation flies by

Back after a month, and this time I've finished my Endocrinology/Geriatrics rotation, with the exception of a one week stint doing rehabilitation medicine in a linked hospital. The term was extremely busy compared to Cardiology - we had about three times the patient load of my old cardiology team; but somehow, we managed to have more coffee breaks! I never really quite got my head around that one. The rotation was essentially a geriatric one, with endocrinology clinics featuring some interesting cases of thyroid problems, acromegaly and carcinoid syndrome (!) which are quite rare cases indeed, and it was wonderful to meet these patients first-hand, who had a real can-do, positive attitude about managing their disease. Strangely enough, the team was also burdened with a rheumatology aside, which was all but inconspicuous to me until the very last day when I saw my first case of scleroderma.

This term was punctuated by AMSA Convention!!

AMSA Convention was at Sydney this year, and seeing as I really don't expect to have the time, energy or money to bother flying out to any conference/convention in the future, I thought it best that I attend it whilst it was at least here in my own harbour. I must say, it was brilliant - inspiring and engaging speakers from all sorts of backgrounds - working with the UN, Discovery Channel, media personalities, and authors from around the world. It is interesting to see where some doctors go after they finish their training, and thought-provoking (at least, for me) in considering the path we could choose when we would be done with ours. The afternoon workshops were also excellent, including the renowned Talley and O'Connor duo (who I fear must have been sick of medical students lining up to take their photo, impeding a quick exit from the lectern hall) and controversial neurosurgeon Dr Charlie Teo. The topics of discussion were at once filled with humour, reflection and practices within medicine, and it was certainly well worth the attendance. Finally, the inter-uni debating series organised at Convention were a great source of amusement, in particular the UNSW vs USyd match, which I felt fitting to have in the lectern hall given the sizeable rivalry displayed at the debate. Unfortunately, I only attended two days (no nights - wasn't feeling up to the night-time mischief that goes on whilst knowing I had to be back at hospital the next day), and so was not able to attend the Emergency Medicine Challenge or the other talks - but from what I heard, they were excellent as well. So, definitely a worthwhile experience - if you can, make a point to attend AMSA at least once during your course - and if you've been to AMSA Con before, I'm sure you'll back me up :)

Going back to the rotation business, I thought it pertinent to bring up an issue very commonly seen in geriatrics - the Advance Care Directive (ACD) and Not-For-Resuscitation documentation. For those who are unaware, this is essentially the decision of the capable patient, or if not possible, the next of kin, in regards to how much the hospital should intervene in the event of an arrest or decline in function. The two forms are not identical, as the ACD is more general and comprehensive, but both deal with making sure that what happens to the patient is what the patient wants.

The cynical observer may put forward the idea that ACDs save hospitals money and time, as sustain life artificially is an expensive and arduous task, as well as occupying a bed in Intensive Care Unit. However, as one may have realised already, ACDs are a way of ensuring that we deliver the best possible care to patients. At what point does intervention so reduce the quality of life that it is, in fact, causing the patient harm? There is no set-in-stone regulation answer to this question, and it depends on the patient's mentality and wishes. Thus, there is no better way to make sure that the patient and family are satisfied than to arrange plans for the time when there is no time to plan. The ACD also gives a good idea as to what is offered by the hospital, as most patients, upon entering the hospital system, have very little idea as to what happens within the system and what can be done in their case. Finally, I believe that bringing up the ACD and NFR status of the patient stimulates discussion of death and dying, good and bad ways of dying, and how this may affect the family. Since mortality in this life is 100%, we can only really control how we die - and medical treatment can help determine when we die, but not whether we die (at least, not at the moment or in the foreseeable future). Through observing the process of resuscitation, intubation, insertion of various lines and admission into Intensive Care Unit, it makes sense to me why many doctors in geriatric medicine tend to recommend NFR status and withholding of various invasive treatments, and the majority of patients and their families come to understand this as the most humane treatment of the patient.

It's the opposite of what many imagine a doctor to be - a life saver, a guardian standing between life and death, etc etc. The heroics are newsworthy, but the genuine compassion and care that occurs every day within the hospital and outside is far more important in affecting the population that come through the doors of hospitals. It's triggered an internal conflict, as I had found myself leaning towards Emergency Medicine for the patient variety, all-encompassing nature, and opportunity to impact the patient's initial management the most - but the most impressive work seems to be hidden away from that hustle and bustle, and I am definitely most impressed.