2/
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
3/ We have a patient with presumed simple intravascular volume contraction. Do the labs support that hypothesis?
The sodium is slightly low - volume contraction is definitely a potential cause of low sodium - if the patient is drinking fluids freely.
4/ If the problem is simply volume contraction - then we would expect a hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis. Volume contraction stimulates aldosterone and sodium reabsorption (to try to protect volume). We change the proximal tubular bicarb reabsorption threshold.
5/ But the patient has a high K, and a low normal bicarbonate. Note the normal anion gap and we are told u/a is normal so likely no ketones. The BUN is quite high for some with decreased intake. The creatinine is very high for a patient with a BMI of 55 and sarcopenia.
6/ So the labs look partly like routine volume contraction, but some things just don't fit. What else could give orthostasis?
Autonomic dysfunction can - but the appropriate pulse increased excludes the autonomic branch of the schema.
7/ Then we learn that volume does no resolve the orthostatic BP & HR. Things are not what they appeared. Slightly low sodium, slightly high K and relative hypotension make one consider adrenal insufficiency.
8/ I would have drawn a random cortisol at that point and given a dose of dexamethasone. The cortisol should be elevated given the BP and the tachycardia. If it is not elevated than a stimulation test will either support or exclude adrenal insufficiency.
9/ I choose dexamethasone because it is the only glucocorticoid that will not interfere with the measurements of the stim test.
In fact this patient did have adrenal insufficiency. I (and the wisdom of the chat) did not work through this analysis.
1/ #UncleBob - on giving formative feedback on rounds. First, make it clear in your expectations discussion (day 1) that you will critique many things and label them as feedback. #MedEd@CPSolvers@uabimres
2/ Especially with new presentations, stop after the HPI and both praise the story and provide suggestions on making the presentation better. Emphasize the role of storytelling as separate from having taken a good history.
3/ Understand that when you ask questions - some are hard and some are easy. When a learner answers a hard question well - praise them and note that you are giving positive feedback.
1/Time for a #UncleBob screed. The question Andrew raises is a very interesting one. First I must provide my understanding of the purpose of teaching ward attending physicians.
I divide this into providing excellent patient care & helping learners grow.
2/ Providing high quality care is a given. Excellent ward attendings evolve with clinical practice (consider the 10,000 hour "rule"). But I would argue that both outpatient clinical practice and inpatient practice are beneficial.
3/ And I believe I learn more in a month of ward attending than if I did a month of solo patient care. Patient care requires attention to detail, diagnostic excellence, management efficiency and proper use of tests and consultants.
2/ Some basic physiology - we metabolize around 1 mEq of H+ daily from our diet. We buffer that acid using titratable (phosphate) and non-titratable (NH4+) acids.
The phosphate pathway does not vary much, but our kidneys can normally control the ammonium pathway
3/ Where does the ammonia come from? Glutamine -> glutamate under the enzyme glutaminase produces NH3
Here is the interesting part. Increased K inhibits this enzyme, thus we produce insufficient NH3 to buffer our dietary intake.
#UncleBob posted this link yesterday. Here are a few thoughts on the article. “I don’t know what’s the matter with people: they don’t learn by understanding; they learn by some other way—by rote or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!”
"The difference between reasoning by first principles and reasoning by analogy is like the difference between being a chef and being a cook. If the cook lost the recipe, he’d be screwed."
This is so relevant to those who grow and those who stagnate.
"Some of us are naturally skeptical of what we’re told. Maybe it doesn’t match up to our experiences. Maybe it’s something that used to be true but isn’t true anymore. And maybe we just think very differently about something." - The best diagnosticians always question previous dx
1/ Here is the story - hopefully instructive. Patient (ESRD w/ dialysis) admitted 3 weeks previously for dyspnea. Portable CXR shows small pleural effusion & some haziness - pneumonia or atelectasis. No fever, no increased WBC, no productive cough. Discussed now w/ radiology
2/ Radiologist teaches our team - pneumonia is a CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS - cannot make the diagnosis by CXR/CT scan.
Patient discharged - readmitted for more dyspnea - now with moderate pericardial effusion and large left pleural effusion. Receive furosemide & then thoracentesis
1/ #UncleBob hopes those on the fence about vaccines will understand this
Weekly COVID-19 death rate via CDC:
Unvaccinated: 9.7 deaths per 100k
Fully vaccinated: 0.7 deaths per 100k
Boosted: 0.1 deaths per 100k
2/ Yes you can get omicron even if you are boosted
BUT
You are less likely to get infected
If you get infected you are much less likely to need hospitalization
If you need hospitalization, you are much less likely to need ICU care, and MUCH less likely to die
3/ Would you turn down medical care if you got sick?
I assume no - almost everyone comes to the hospital and ask for everything
Then why would you not accept a free prevention tool?