Quake3World

What do you think of the series "House"? I find it really entertaining, but I have no idea if the cases they are covering are plausible or not.

I like the show, for the most part, except for the new direction they are taking it with the new hospital director.

As for the reality of the show -

I like the fact that House and his colleagues are wrong so much in the early phases of diagnosing cases. From a purely scientific standpoint, it shows the real nature of the scientific method - the continual development and modification of hypothesis based on the data you have available - data that is always changing.

I've paid close attention when they ramble about the various pathogens that could be responsible for certain symptoms (when they are all writing on the whiteboard and brainstorming potential causes) and they are talking about real diseases and usually they seem to do a good job of being fairly accurate with what the symptoms are (but I'm basing my opinion off of my academic/research experience with some of these things - not a hospital setting....)

Things are still a bit overdone at times...like how the docs break into people's house to investigate things.

Saturn and Geebs, how often do you sneak into a patient's house while they are at the hospital to see if there is any botulistic food stored away in their kitchen?

The show is very dramatized, far more than any other medical drama, but it's no less accurate I don't think.

tnf wrote:I like the show, for the most part, except for the new direction they are taking it with the new hospital director.

As for the reality of the show -

I like the fact that House and his colleagues are wrong so much in the early phases of diagnosing cases. From a purely scientific standpoint, it shows the real nature of the scientific method - the continual development and modification of hypothesis based on the data you have available - data that is always changing.

I've paid close attention when they ramble about the various pathogens that could be responsible for certain symptoms (when they are all writing on the whiteboard and brainstorming potential causes) and they are talking about real diseases and usually they seem to do a good job of being fairly accurate with what the symptoms are (but I'm basing my opinion off of my academic/research experience with some of these things - not a hospital setting....)

Things are still a bit overdone at times...like how the docs break into people's house to investigate things.

Saturn and Geebs, how often do you sneak into a patient's house while they are at the hospital to see if there is any botulistic food stored away in their kitchen?

Haven't heard of the show yet, it isn't broadcasted here.

Making diagnoses is often very simple, just add 1+1 and you have 2. Something you forget when you're working in an academic hospital with all the complicated cases. I've been doing internship at the open-heart surgery intensive care for a few weeks, and some of the longstay patients have such intricate pathologies and their internal physiology is altered by their sickness and (longterm) medications. I've found that one of the most tiring weeks ever during my internship cause you have to rethink every step you did and are going to do. The patients have many intravenous lines, pressure meters, dozen continuous medicine pumps, they get an X-ray every day, blood samples are taken 3-6 times a day, I've intubated a patient on the IC cause of respiratory insufficiency, etc. It requires streneous thinking all day to plan your actions and lots of flexibility to react on ever changing clinical parameters.

I need some sleep.

saturn wrote:

tnf wrote:I like the show, for the most part, except for the new direction they are taking it with the new hospital director.

As for the reality of the show -

I like the fact that House and his colleagues are wrong so much in the early phases of diagnosing cases. From a purely scientific standpoint, it shows the real nature of the scientific method - the continual development and modification of hypothesis based on the data you have available - data that is always changing.

I've paid close attention when they ramble about the various pathogens that could be responsible for certain symptoms (when they are all writing on the whiteboard and brainstorming potential causes) and they are talking about real diseases and usually they seem to do a good job of being fairly accurate with what the symptoms are (but I'm basing my opinion off of my academic/research experience with some of these things - not a hospital setting....)

Things are still a bit overdone at times...like how the docs break into people's house to investigate things.

Saturn and Geebs, how often do you sneak into a patient's house while they are at the hospital to see if there is any botulistic food stored away in their kitchen?

Haven't heard of the show yet, it isn't broadcasted here.

Making diagnoses is often very simple, just add 1+1 and you have 2. Something you forget when you're working in an academic hospital with all the complicated cases. I've been doing internship at the open-heart surgery intensive care for a few weeks, and some of the longstay patients have such intricate pathologies and their internal physiology is altered by their sickness and (longterm) medications. I've found that one of the most tiring weeks ever during my internship cause you have to rethink every step you did and are going to do. The patients have many intravenous lines, pressure meters, dozen continuous medicine pumps, they get an X-ray every day, blood samples are taken 3-6 times a day, I've intubated a patient on the IC cause of respiratory insufficiency, etc. It requires streneous thinking all day to plan your actions and lots of flexibility to react on ever changing clinical parameters.

I need some sleep.

This show isn't about simple diagnosis though. I agree with you about the run-of-the-mill stuff you see on a day to day basis...diagnosing colds, pneumonia, etc. This show is specifically about people with conditions that are baffling, and that don't ever fall into a category where a simple diagnosis works. Often times the patients symptoms will mimic those of something easy to diagnose, and the treatment for what they thought it was doesn't work, or makes things worse, and then the show gets going as they try to figure out what condition, or group of conditions, is causing the problem.

But yes, simple diagnosing isn't too bad I'm sure.

interesting, I hope the shows comes here.

I've been downloading the eps over BT

That show has me seriously addicted. Everytime I like a weekly show a lot (Dead Like Me, Top Gear, etc) I just exhaust all the episodes I have, watching 2-3 per day and then I suffer when it goes off air or is cancelled

I thought you were talking about that terrible horror movie series of the same name.

Mogul wrote:I thought you were talking about that terrible horror movie series of the same name.

That <i>was</i> pretty bad. :icon32:

saturn wrote:

tnf wrote:I like the show, for the most part, except for the new direction they are taking it with the new hospital director.

As for the reality of the show -

I like the fact that House and his colleagues are wrong so much in the early phases of diagnosing cases. From a purely scientific standpoint, it shows the real nature of the scientific method - the continual development and modification of hypothesis based on the data you have available - data that is always changing.

I've paid close attention when they ramble about the various pathogens that could be responsible for certain symptoms (when they are all writing on the whiteboard and brainstorming potential causes) and they are talking about real diseases and usually they seem to do a good job of being fairly accurate with what the symptoms are (but I'm basing my opinion off of my academic/research experience with some of these things - not a hospital setting....)

Things are still a bit overdone at times...like how the docs break into people's house to investigate things.

Saturn and Geebs, how often do you sneak into a patient's house while they are at the hospital to see if there is any botulistic food stored away in their kitchen?

Haven't heard of the show yet, it isn't broadcasted here.

Making diagnoses is often very simple, just add 1+1 and you have 2. Something you forget when you're working in an academic hospital with all the complicated cases. I've been doing internship at the open-heart surgery intensive care for a few weeks, and some of the longstay patients have such intricate pathologies and their internal physiology is altered by their sickness and (longterm) medications. I've found that one of the most tiring weeks ever during my internship cause you have to rethink every step you did and are going to do. The patients have many intravenous lines, pressure meters, dozen continuous medicine pumps, they get an X-ray every day, blood samples are taken 3-6 times a day, I've intubated a patient on the IC cause of respiratory insufficiency, etc. It requires streneous thinking all day to plan your actions and lots of flexibility to react on ever changing clinical parameters.

I need some sleep.

Yeah, I haven't seen it either.

Sat, it sounds like they've really dropped you in the deep end - in England you generally don't get intensive care/anaesthetics jobs until you've got your membership.

I like that show, too, I was so surprised to see Hugh Laurie in a dramatic role as a doctor on an American TV show, but he does a great job. His character is really good. Cranky doctors seem a lot more realistic to me than caring ones.

House? Not Howser then?

Geebs wrote:

saturn wrote:

tnf wrote:I like the show, for the most part, except for the new direction they are taking it with the new hospital director.

As for the reality of the show -

I like the fact that House and his colleagues are wrong so much in the early phases of diagnosing cases. From a purely scientific standpoint, it shows the real nature of the scientific method - the continual development and modification of hypothesis based on the data you have available - data that is always changing.

I've paid close attention when they ramble about the various pathogens that could be responsible for certain symptoms (when they are all writing on the whiteboard and brainstorming potential causes) and they are talking about real diseases and usually they seem to do a good job of being fairly accurate with what the symptoms are (but I'm basing my opinion off of my academic/research experience with some of these things - not a hospital setting....)

Things are still a bit overdone at times...like how the docs break into people's house to investigate things.

Saturn and Geebs, how often do you sneak into a patient's house while they are at the hospital to see if there is any botulistic food stored away in their kitchen?

Haven't heard of the show yet, it isn't broadcasted here.

Making diagnoses is often very simple, just add 1+1 and you have 2. Something you forget when you're working in an academic hospital with all the complicated cases. I've been doing internship at the open-heart surgery intensive care for a few weeks, and some of the longstay patients have such intricate pathologies and their internal physiology is altered by their sickness and (longterm) medications. I've found that one of the most tiring weeks ever during my internship cause you have to rethink every step you did and are going to do. The patients have many intravenous lines, pressure meters, dozen continuous medicine pumps, they get an X-ray every day, blood samples are taken 3-6 times a day, I've intubated a patient on the IC cause of respiratory insufficiency, etc. It requires streneous thinking all day to plan your actions and lots of flexibility to react on ever changing clinical parameters.

I need some sleep.

Yeah, I haven't seen it either.

Sat, it sounds like they've really dropped you in the deep end - in England you generally don't get intensive care/anaesthetics jobs until you've got your membership.

It was a choice of me to do some weeks of intensive care, was quite a steep learning curve