So it looks like the new Vet Pathologist and I attended the same school for undergrad at the SAME time!!!! Well, ain't that some 'ish and so far she seems like my kinda gal having already commented on how dead the lab is (her words, NOT mine).
Either way, I've decided to focus on other things in my life other than the lab "microenvironment", like the MCAT. And I'm slowly trudging through Ct. 3 in the TBR Chem 1 book. I'm also making some good strides in verbal, and just hoping I can keep what's morphed into a daily MCAT study schedule going until I take the test some time in late Spring (I think).
A few of you may remember my joining a pathology informatics organization not long ago and one of the benefits of my membership is that I get to be a "fly on the wall" as Pathologists discuss pertinent issues in their practice and in the field. Recently, I was very surprised to learn that ~70% of a patient's medical record consist of labs, ie PATHOLOGY!!! Yet the field is so disrespected in medicine and that makes absolutely NO sense to me!!!!
So what does that means in term of patient care to me? It means that Docs need to start paying attention, and I mean really attention, to what's in those charts, but I wonder, how many of them DO pay attention. Case in point, I have a friend who recently had surgery to remove ovarian cysts and her CA 125 antigen was high (as expected for ovarian cycts). SO my question is that when my friend goes back to have her repeat CA 125 measured, will her Doctor just blow it off if it comes back high again? Unfortunately, this was the case for a family member who long ago succumbed to ovarian cancer. But it begs the question, how much to Docs pay attention to labs? How much do they primarily rely on what they observe clinically which is obviously important, but clearly doesn't tell the entire story? At any rate, I'm really enjoying "listening" in on these convo's!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment