Hi @JohnP congrats on the baby! FYI I just posted an answer on the O2 Sat question that somewhat contradicts yours...if you want to discuss I’m happy to do so here.
@michaelpri Thanks. You too! Although....I’m not sure the nominations thread is all that directly correlated with who SE picks anyway. They have their own reasons and criteria.
This is all very different for me from how I got appointed on hermeneutics, which was totally out of the blue. Was your experience on LH similar to this?
(I was a replacement mod there, after somebody stepped down. There were no nominations or anything like that.)
@michaelpri And congrats on the 2k mark, by the way. Pretty impressive after only two weeks!
On LH, there were a bunch of people who were very good candidates. The top one accepted and so did the next two, but then they later declined because of time issues. I was nominated well after everyone else, but since almost everyone ahead of me declined, they chose me.
Thanks :)
@Susan I do think they take votes into account though. Usually if someone has a lot more votes than everyone else (like how you have almost 2x the next person) then they will get chosen.
@michaelpri We shall see. The more things get brought up on meta, the more I realize how difficult a job the mods will have. This site has some unique issues.
Meanwhile, I’m still wishing we could just get the tagging right. (A relatively uncontroversial one, I imagine.) It’s all over the place. I don’t really care so much if we use lay terms or medical terms (my meta post wasn’t really meant to promote fancy terminology), I just want it to be more systematic. Otherwise I don’t think it’s helpful for people interested in a subject to browse relevant questions.
Closer reading, I think I see where you are coming from. I still think both answers have validity. (First scan was a quick glance while feeding the bebby.)
@anongoodnurse after making this comment I realized I don't work anyplace where screening for CO comes up much, which may be why I've never seen a bedside co-oximeter (although methemoglobin I've seen plenty of (courtesy of our friends in the bronchoscopy suite who love their hurricane spray) and never run across it for that). Any input re. whether the pulse-ox-like devices are in common use?
@Susan - We don't in our ED (55+K visits/year). And we have a very new ED. My understanding is that they are a screening device only (good in triage), and a back-up ABG has to be done anyway because of false +/-s. We just do ABG's in any patient where the diagnosis is suspected. I'd bet the local tertiary care ED has them, though.
@anongoodnurse Thanks. I was kind of surprised when I realized they are around but I’ve never seen one. I thought I learned (years back) that they weren’t very good, but if they’re still making them somebody must be using them.
@anongoodnurse OK, so the manufacturer of this device actually gives some validation data that look pretty good (if you believe manufacturer's data). So probably I spoke too soon in that comment. cc: @Shlublu
@Susan - if that's the RAD-57, a lot (well, relatively) of the small studies of the efficacy of co-oximetry were done with that device, and it got some pretty mixed reviews...
@anongoodnurse I think you got it right. It is indeed the RAD-57 in that brochure, and I was joking about their impartiality. Anyway, I didn't know anything (up-to-date) about it, so thanks for your input.
We had a good friend who was a drug rep (yes, I remember one of the studies was sponsored by Maismo or something) who was the highest paid drug rep in the state for pushing the most docs to prescribe Cipro.
@Susan - she pushed Cipro (this is when it first came out) for (drumroll) community acquired pneumonia!
@anongoodnurse Interesting....I'm not actually sure what the "respiratory fluoroquinolones" add, but I think it's something. Is pneumococcus routinely sensitive to cipro?
@anongoodnurse OK, apparently it was on patent sometime recently then.
@anongoodnurse It wasn't a trick question. At all. I just did a brief search and didn't find the answer, so I decided to see if somebody else was interested.
@anongoodnurse My sense is that the iron hypothesis about women's longevity must have fallen out of favor because I heard about it back in med school and it seems like it would be a big deal by now if it had been supported by rigorous data.
@anongoodnurse Thanks for your comment here: health.stackexchange.com/questions/521/… - Straight to the point. It took me a while to figure out that COPD (en) and BPCO (fr) are actually the same thing.
@Shlublu That’s a really interesting question about O2 administration, by the way. It’s an area that is replete with myths, and I am not sure myself where the real evidence lies so I’ll be interested to see what comes of it.
It also touches on some good bread-and-butter respiratory physiology, always a plus in my book. :-)
@JohnP Hi! Yes I am. Plenty of us only have a coffee or a tea or a hot chocolate in the morning. Which is not the best thing ever. When we have time or when we take this time we also have croissants, bread+butter+jam, things like that...
Sometimes I keep getting negative reactions/comments (one example), because my answers contain links/sources to Wikipedia.
Is pointing to Wikipedia is fine and it should be treated as a reliable source?
It relates to What are reliable sources?, however this is specifically question about Wikipe...
Inspired by the comment left for my answer to this question: Can getting the flu shot make you sicker next year?
Providing sources is within the spirit of the site, and something I've tried to do when possible, there are going to be questions based on pure conjecture for which finding a source i...
@Shlublu Is it criminal to say that whenever someone says "Paris" my first thought isn't of the Musee d'Orsay, The Louvre, Notre Dame, or all the wonderful sights, but of the croissants and hot chocolate we were served for breakfast? Every wonderful morning? :D
@Shlublu And it never occurred to me that there could be a misunderstanding based on language! Should we avoid abbreviations? I think if that helps, it should certainly be done!
@anongoodnurse - Abbreviations in all texts should be referenced after the first spelling of the term in parentheses, then continued as the abbreviation. Such as "creatine affects the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in the cell for energy. ATP provides energy by breaking one phosphate bond, creating adenosine diphosphate (ADP). Creatine rich fluid donates phosphates enabling the conversion of ADP to ATP within the cell."
And that sentence is not quite correct as far as the physiology goes, but it demonstrates what I mean.
A lot of people are likely to have embarrassing health issues that mean they want to ask the questions anonymously, rather than under their main Stack Exchange account.
Now, I strongly suspect this will be rejected by Stack Exchange, but I just thought I'd give them this choice:
Allow anonymou...
@anongoodnurse Well, it was not a misunderstanding. I just didn't know these abbreviations, and I'm happy to know them now. Don't forget I'm not a doctor, so determining whether A(fr) = A(en) requires a bit of checking on my side to be sure I'm not saying anything wrong:)
@anongoodnurse Criminal ? Absolutely not, just pragmatic ;) Thinking about a good breakfast when hearing the name "Paris" sounds like music to me ;) ;) ;)
Haha! I was sure you were a fencing man when seeing your picture. I used to be an epeeist. Happy practice ! :) (your glasgow is low, though)
About the Corlanor, I expected something like that when hearing the rumble when breathing. I was expecting your skin to be brown and sweating. Maybe a little bit marbled at the joints.
Sometimes I keep getting negative reactions/comments (one example), because my answers contain links/sources to Wikipedia.
Is pointing to Wikipedia is fine and it should be treated as a reliable source?
It relates to What are reliable sources?, however this is specifically question about Wikipe...
A lot of people are likely to have embarrassing health issues that mean they want to ask the questions anonymously, rather than under their main Stack Exchange account.
Now, I strongly suspect this will be rejected by Stack Exchange, but I just thought I'd give them this choice:
Allow anonymou...
Grand Rounds
Grand Rounds