TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Science

    Sensible Medicine

    Common sense and original thinking in bio-medicine
    A platform for diverse views and debate

    www.sensible-med.com

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Editors

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Mandrola & Prasad on Republicans and COVID outcomes, Journals and stenting Aug 23, 2023
    Show notes
    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    A Conversation with Professor Robert Yeh Aug 20, 2023
    Show notes

    Here is the profile for Harvard Professor Robert (Bobby) Yeh.

    His most recent Circulation paper: Bringing the Credibility Revolution to Observational Research in Cardiology.

    We referenced a paper by Professor Miguel Hernan: The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data

    Paper referenced on left ventricular assist devices: Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump or No Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

    Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    I learned a lot from this conversation. One of the main lessons is that no matter how well the authors avoid causal language, the intent of an observational comparison study is causal. And if that is so, the main thrust of these efforts ought to be simulate, as close as possible, a randomized clinical trial.

    One of my favorite parts of our chat was Bobby’s now famous explanation of immortal time bias using Cheetos.

    Let us know what you think. I hope to do more of these types of conversations.

    JMM


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Friday Reflection 27: The Poor Historian Aug 11, 2023
    Show notes

    BW was a 66-year-old woman who presented for an urgent visit to the general medicine clinic. She reported that she had been having dizziness for the last four days. When pressed, she said it occurred intermittently, being present more than absent. She could not identify any palliative or provocative features, and when asked about associated symptoms she said that she felt “bad and scared” when it was present. The doctor encouraged her, many times, to characterize the dizziness, and she could only say that when she had it, she felt dizzy.

    Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    Many a medical trainee has been humiliated on morning rounds after proclaiming that their presentation was wanting because the “patient was a poor historian.” Any attending worth her white coat will respond in one of the following ways:

    “There are no poor historians, just poor history-takers.”

    “You do realize, don’t you, that the patient is not the historian? You are the historian.”

    “Did you consider the differential diagnosis of why you were unable to obtain a useful history?”

    I admit that, going for pith over constructive criticism, I employ the former two more than the latter one. There is a differential diagnosis for the patient who cannot describe the history of their medical concerns.

    Often, the inability of a doctor to obtain a history is actually a physical exam finding – an extremely non-specific finding, but a finding nonetheless. Psychiatric disease, dementia, and delirium (whose differential diagnosis itself is practically a textbook of medicine) will render a patient unable to provide an accurate history. I can recall dozens of “poor historians'' who became Robert Caro-esque once their hypercapnea, uremia, or alcohol withdrawal was treated.

    There are three other reasons that obtaining reliable and informative histories might be a struggle.

    1. We think with language

    The first — the saddest, most troublesome, and probably most common – reason that patients are unable to provide a reliable history is because of their impaired language skills. Not only do we use language to communicate, we also use language to think. George Orwell wrote, “…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”[i]

    Those of us who failed to master language, usually through inadequate education, are unable to express their health concerns clearly. Sometimes, listening to a patient try to describe symptoms, I get the sense that the problem is more than expressive.

    BW was not an especially striking example of this for me, she was just one of the more recent. She also presented with a problem for which an accurate history is critical. The history of a patient's dizziness radically alters the differential diagnosis. We teach trainees that the first question to pose to a patient with dizziness is, “What do you mean, dizzy?” We tell the trainee to ask the question and then sit back and listen. More often than not, patients will describe their dizziness in a way that can be interpreted as lightheadedness, vertigo, unsteadiness, or a non-specific feeling of being unwell.[ii]

    As I interviewed BW, my sense was that she not only struggled to articulate what she was feeling but to figure it out herself. Beyond my frustration in having trouble caring for her, I considered the lifelong impact of leaving people educationally impoverished. Sure, we limit people’s earning potential, but we also limit their internal life and their healthcare.

    2. Anxiety affects how we experience symptoms

    VG is a patient I have seen for years, from his mid 30’s to his early 60’s. He has a few very mild chronic medical conditions and very severe anxiety disorder. He is a successful professional but struggles with intermittent episodes of health-related anxiety.

    Our interactions usually begin with an email or a phone call. VG will have become anxious about a new symptom. The symptom is real – joint pain, a rash, a new floater. The symptom has generated a web of worry about what it could portend. The worries are always baseless and would be amusing if they were not so clearly painful and disturbing to him.

    I have learned that for VG, as well as for many patients like him, these concerns require a visit. An accurate history cannot be obtained without seeing him. The anxiety clouds VG’s experience of the symptom. The knee pain becomes excruciating, the rash ubiquitous, the floater debilitating. The response to simple questions -- Is the knee pain worse coming down the stairs? Where is the rash? Do you see the floater in one or both eyes? -- become unreliable. Seeing VG, providing some reassurance, and obtaining objective physical data is imperative.

    3. Secondary gain

    “Listen to your patient; he is telling you the diagnosis” is is an Osler (or merely Oslerian) quotation. From the earliest days of our training we are taught to listen to our patients and believe what they are telling us. Our greatest sin in history taking is that we interrupt too soon and too often. We ask closed-ended and leading questions. When the answer to a question doesn’t align with our hypothesis, we either ignore the response or doubt its veracity.

    However, patients are people and people lie. Patients exaggerate the symptoms of their sinus infection to get an antibiotic prescription. Patients tell you that their oxycodone or Ambien fell in the sink or toilet so they can get an early refill.[iii] I have had numerous people appear on my schedule with the chief concern of “chest pain” documented by the nurse. When I ask, “Tell me about your chest pain?” the patient responds, sheepishly, “I’m not actually here for chest pain but I really needed to see you and I knew that would get me in.”

    Some of these untruths are the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Patients exaggerate symptoms because they fear they will not otherwise be taken seriously. They fear mild but troublesome or worrisome symptoms will be met with:

    “Let’s just watch that.”

    “That doesn’t really sound like it warrants treatment.”

    “If it hurts to bend your arm, don’t bend your arm.”

    Most everyone learns at some point the factoid that 80% of diagnoses come from the medical history. However, contrary to a standardized test on which the medical history is presented in a paragraph of clean prose, it requires skill to obtain a medical history. A novice will take longer than an expert to extract a less accurate history. From some patients, however, not even an experienced physician can obtain a cogent medical history. This failure may be a clue to an underlying diagnosis. It may also be related to a person's education, their health-related anxiety, or their effort, conscious or unconscious, to influence the doctor.

    [i] Orwell obviously took this idea to in a frightening direction in 1984 describing a government that uses the control on language to control thought.

    [ii] We often jokingly describe this last type of dizzy as “dizzy dammit” – as in “I am just dizzy, dammit.”

    [iii] It is interesting that people only drop opiates, benzodiazepines, and stimulants in the sink. Nobody has every dropped an SSRI, statin, or antibiotic.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Friday Reflection #26: General Internal Medicine in the Time of COVID Jul 28, 2023
    Show notes

    There is something valuable about learning to adapt old skills to novel situations.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Podcast discussion on Nutrition Science, HFpEF and the NYT article on treatment of PAD Jul 27, 2023
    Show notes

    Adam and I discuss three topics

    I) The MIND Trial published in NEJM. Does a special diet reduce the future risk of cognitive decline?

    II) HFpEF — I am speaking at a congress on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction this week, and Adam helps me out with some pointers.

    III) NYT published a Sunday front page story on potential overuse of procedures for peripheral artery disease.

    JMM


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Friday Reflection 25: The Advice I’d Like to Give a Student Entering Medical School Jul 14, 2023
    Show notes

    Four pieces of advice nobody asked for.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Friday Reflection 24: I Would Rather Go Back in Time Jun 30, 2023
    Show notes

    KW was a 58-year-old man with long standing type 1 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. He came to an appointment one Friday afternoon with chest pain. The pain had been present intermittently for 10 days. It was on the left side of his chest and beneath his sternum. It did not radiate anywhere, it was not related to exertion, nor was it associated with diaphoresis or shortness of breath. It was also not positional and there were no areas of tenderness.

    Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    When I was a kid, we often played “Would You Rather?” to pass the time during a car or bus ride. This game had remarkable staying power. When we first started playing, at about age ten, the questions were mostly things like:

    Would you rather eat a cicada or a cricket?

    As we aged, the questions progressed through the usual male adolescent fare to more profound philosophical quandaries:

    If you managed the Mets, would you rather pitch Seaver or Koosman?

    Would you rather have a Ferrari or a Porsche?

    Would you rather date Lauren or Lizzie?

    Would you rather visit the past or the future?

    From a professional standpoint, there is no question that my answer to the final question would be, “the past.” There are a dozen or so patients that I want a second chance at. I wonder if, knowing what I know now, would I manage things differently?[1] Would the outcomes be different? Would some of the people still be here?

    I should not have admitted him.

    For my entire career I have had a clinic scheduled on Friday afternoon. My reasoning is two-fold. First, I know that if I didn’t have patients scheduled Friday afternoon, I’d probably kick off early. Having a full schedule on Fridays assures that I stick it out to the bitter end, thus making me more productive each week. Second, most people opt not to see patients Friday afternoon so I tend to get more support as one of the few doctors working.

    The downside of this is that I am seeing patients when my management options are somewhat limited. Patients present with troublesome symptoms that they “just want checked out before the weekend” and I’m left either worrying about them all weekend or admitting them to the hospital where I know little will happen for the next two days.

    There was a lot about KW’s chest pain that was not concerning for symptomatic coronary artery disease. It was not exertional. The episodes sometimes lasted minutes and sometimes hours. It was not accompanied by shortness of breath, diaphoresis, or a feeling of impending doom. He also had had a normal stress test a couple of years before.

    On the other hand, KW was a middle-aged American man with chest pain and significant risk factors for coronary artery disease – hypertension and diabetes – neither of which had ever been terribly well-controlled.

    I made the decision that I felt was safest for him and the one that would let me sleep best all weekend; I admitted him to the hospital. I called the admitting resident; I let her know that I was (a little) worried that he had unstable angina and that I was admitting him so that he could be observed until he could get an assessment of his coronary arteries.

    The resident (not incorrectly) decided that if he might have unstable angina, he should be started on a blood thinner – heparin.

    In the end, KW did not have unstable angina, a coronary angiogram done weeks later was normal. Why did it take weeks to complete the angiogram? Because after being started on heparin, he had an intracranial hemorrhage – a bleed in his brain.

    I should have admitted her.

    PH is a woman I have written about in the past. She presented to me early in my career having lost about a third of her body weight to an undiagnosed, metastatic cancer. She did not require hospitalization. She was well hydrated and her vital signs were normal. She had walked into the office that first day and would need only a wheelchair to come and go to her last visit 6 months later. She did not require hospitalization for evaluation or treatment. There would be little we could offer her beyond the palliative care that I could direct at her home.

    I managed her evaluation and her care while she remained an outpatient. By the time she died, this management had included intravenous fluids, pain medications, antiemetics, and seizure medications. My memory was that what drove my effort to keep her out of the hospital was more my philosophy than her and her family’s wishes. At the time, I believed that unnecessary hospitalizations were an anathema. They wasted money, put patients at risk, and were the refuge of lazy or unskilled physicians. I do remember that PH wanted to avoid aggressive care, but I cannot remember her explicitly resisting hospitalization. I do remember her brother once asking, “Shouldn’t she be in the hospital?”

    From my current vantage point, my efforts to keep her out of the hospital seem, at best, ill-advised. It seems my management decisions were more about me and less about her. It is hard to imagine that the experience, for PF’s family if not for her, would have been less stressful had I brought her into the hospital a few times during her final months.

    Did I miss something simple?

    JJ was the rare patient who I saw for decades whose health was at its worst when I first met her. She presented to my clinic in a heart failure exacerbation. I wheeled her to the emergency department where she was promptly intubated. Over the next 20 years her heart failure became asymptomatic; her asthma – which I am pretty sure was misdiagnosed heart failure – disappeared; and I weaned her off all her drugs for diabetes. She and her family marked the date of our first visit as a second birthday and saw every year after this date as an unexpected gift.

    In her mid-70s, at a routine appointment, she mentioned an episode of vomiting followed by transient loss of consciousness. The episode barely troubled her and a brief evaluation at the visit was unrevealing. Three months later she died unexpectedly after a similar episode. The differential diagnosis of what I might have missed is extensive. I wonder if I could have made a diagnosis, the treatment of which might have saved her life.

    Did I miss something complicated?

    SV was a patient who kept me up at night for the better part of 18 months. She was in her late 70’s and she was dying. There was fatigue, weight loss, nausea, declining kidney function, and a few strokes. My work up was extensive including imaging, blood tests, and biopsies. I consulted a cardiologist, a neurologist, a nephrologist, and a rheumatologist. We treated many disparate issues but never discovered the unifying diagnosis that eventually took her life. Knowing what I know now, and having the diagnostic tools that now exist, could I have saved her?

    Could I have convinced her to get treated?

    TP was 80 years old when I diagnosed her with breast cancer. Long before we met, she had decided that she would never have a second mammogram. I did not set out to find a tumor. I discovered a breast mass when she came to see me with shingles.

    You might be thinking, how can you be sad that you did not convince an 80 year old with cancer to be treated. Especially when this woman did not want to be treated? Well, first, 80 years old is not the same for every person. Everyone who met TP assumed she was at least 15 years younger than she was. Because she had no intention of getting treatment, she declined biopsy or evaluation of her cancer. I knew nothing about the biology of the cancer or the extent of the disease when I discovered it.

    Over the next 5 years, this vibrant woman declined in the most unpleasant and traumatic ways. I have to think that treatment could have made her life better if not longer. I wonder if I am now better equipped to counsel her.

    Could I have convinced him not to get treated?

    KS was a man in his early 80s. He had COPD and depended on home oxygen. His symptoms were pretty well controlled on a regimen of inhalers. He continued to smoke, saying – with a wink – that it was his only pleasure left in life. He was adamant about not wanting screening tests or any medications not necessary to relieve symptoms. During my one attempt at discussing end of life planning, he told me he just wanted to make sure he “went fast and without pain.” I documented those words in my progress note that day.

    Then, everything changed.

    KS came to the office after starting to notice streaks of blood in his sputum during his morning coughing spells. A chest x-ray that day revealed a left upper lobe mass. I told him that this was almost certainly lung cancer, and offered him two paths forward. The one I expected him to take was to assume the diagnosis was lung cancer, forgo further workup and therapy, and treat symptoms as they arose. The option I expected him to decline was further evaluation with a CT scan, biopsy of the most accessible lesion, and a visit to a surgeon and/or an oncologist. His decision surprised me.

    He was soon diagnosed with small cell lung cancer with regional spread. After meeting with an oncologist he opted for chemotherapy. His reasoning was, “I feel pretty good now, and if I’m going to be dead in six months with or without treatment, I’m hoping treatment will give me a better six months.” I reminded him of what he had said in the past about how he imagined the end of his life playing out, but he would not really engage in this conversation.

    The next 9 months were marked by 9 hospitalizations. KS died during the final one when his inpatient team failed to resuscitate him after a cardiac arrest. He had declined hospice care until the end and would not even accept “do not resuscitate” status.

    I never could figure out what was behind his change of heart. I wonder, if I had a second chance, if I could get him to discuss his decision making and, maybe, figure out a way to achieve a more humane end.

    [1] Just because every time I read this sentence the lyrics to two songs come to mind I have to reference them here. (This is the beauty of writing for substack rather than a journal where no editor would ever let this through). Can you guess the songs?

    First, Bob Dylan:

    “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”

    Second, The Faces:

    I wish that I knew what I know nowWhen I was youngerI wish that I knew what I know nowWhen I was stronger.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Sensible medicine Jun 28, 2023
    Show notes
    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Friday Reflection 23: The Ghost Patient Panel Jun 16, 2023
    Show notes

    This ghost panel is made up of people who used to be my patients but no longer are — people who left my practice without telling me.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Medical Conservatism, the ELAN Trial, and Residents Striking Jun 13, 2023
    Show notes

    Links

    The Case for Being a Medical Conservative https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(19)30167-6/fulltext

    ELAN Trial https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2303048

    Mandrola on NYC Residents’ Strike https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/992607


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

    Previous 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Invisibilia

    1

    Invisibilia Personal Journals
    Hidden Brain – Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam

    2

    Hidden Brain – Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam Science
    How To Do Everything

    3

    How To Do Everything Science
    Hidden Brain

    4

    Hidden Brain Games & Hobbies
    Something You Should Know

    5

    Something You Should Know Education
    Sword and Scale – Sword and Scale

    6

    Sword and Scale – Sword and Scale Alternative Health
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights