TSR Med Students' Society Part III

. But to reiterate: as second years, I imagine that people on 'non-traditional' courses are the better communicators, but by the end of the course, I'm sure it balances out.

However, at UEA the majority of our teaching for rheum + ortho is this module - we are taught everything all at once and then don't really go back to it unless it relates to another disease that comes under a different speciality, so we are actually taught the sciency stuff behind the diseases as well as the social effects etc. So basically, if I see a patient with Paget's/SLE/RA etc etc then I actually know about the disease, know to ask for specific symptoms within specific diseases, so I actually find it very beneficial when it comes to remembering disease for exams and such, as I can just remember the patient and the symptoms they had.

If in your opinion it all balances out, what's the problem?

I'm not branding all people on traditional courses as anything. If you read my post properly, you'd see that I said that I'm sure things balance out in the end. But to reiterate: as second years, I imagine that people on 'non-traditional' courses are the better communicators, but by the end of the course, I'm sure it balances out.


Congratulations? Doesn't sound particularly high-yield to me. I'd prefer to have that replaced with early exposure to clinical and communication skills personally.


Learning relevant science allows the person to think of a treatment plan from first principles. I don't see how not being on a traditional course rules that out.

I'm the one saying there is no problem! Just that I think it's a good idea to infuse some clinical skills into the first few years.


I think basic science is important. This is why I spend hours of my own time going over aspects that aren't all that emphasised on my course. I haven't said: screw the science, it's irrelevant, all being a good doctor requires is a good bedside manner.

I just assumed, and perhaps wrongly*, that a lot of students from traditional courses forget much of the detail driven in during preclinical years.

*based on some observation: the consultants that teach us have often forgotten the details.

What is the point of pitching up to a ward looking at patients if you don't know whats wrong with them? Or what could be wrong with them? Or with no idea about the basics of normal function? Yes, you could say to students this sound is bad, that thing is bad, other things are really bad - but then you're not doing medicine, you're just being a clipboard pen pushing tixbox consultant, you don't need medical school to teach you that, all you need is a protocol, there medical education on the cheap.

You remember alot. I think re consultants, they've reached the unconsciously competent stage, so some of the reasoning dosn't have to be thought through - the reasoning is probably still there somewhere.

Trust me, I absolutely HATED the preclinical course here due to the lack of patient contact, but recently, I've begun to appreciate that time spent poring over Robbins waybackwhen. It's all coming together nicely.

It seems that those who do surgical SSCs open doors for themselves to get a whole lot more shadowing/experience, I regularly hear friends talking about surgery they now get to observe, it's like an extended SSC for as long as you're in contact with the surgeons and as long as they're willing to have you

A friend's comment following his plastic surgery SSC:
what the hell???

end of rant, they're bloody lucky, I guess if I was that keen to do that same I'd just have to somehow ask a doc at the royal london/barts..

So you used Robbins as a path textbook? I haven't been able to find one that I like. All of them don't match the course and most are systems based, which is good for clinical but not great for IB Pathology. Also, any advice on Part II subjects?

I never found one I really liked tbh. I did almost all of my revision from lecture/practical notes, which back in my day were pretty comprehensive.

It's entirely possible I was being a complete retard. If it's not there this time I'm at a loss to what I'm doing, but I tried again

You don't get more non-traditional than Peninsula, and from what I've heard our F1s are getting a lot of praise for being excellent and technically capable. I'm going to put that down to the fact we do F1 things from the start. I was suturing in surgery yesterday on my SSU attachment to a Dermatology ward. I'm only a first year, and I was watching Junior Doctors and the F2 hadn't done suturing on a real person before. Even if you only pick up bits, even if the science goes over your head, if you look you can always gain something from placement. Whether it's watching how different teams work, seeing how patients react to things, a nice phrase you heard you'd like to use yourself. You can look up the science and learn it for yourself later if what you saw sparked an interest and you didn't know it because you hadn't covered it yet. It would be a lot harder to get the experience yourself if it wasn't facilitated by the medical school. I don't know about you, but it was really difficult to get clinical work experience, and then to try and persuade them to let you do something hands on? Not likely.

Yeah thats what I am doing atm. I'm just writing out my own notes from the lecture notes along with the stuff we covered in supervision. Its a pity I can't find a textbook I like, pathology is probably my favourite subject

Robbin's is good. BRS path is a nice review book. And if you are really keen, there are audio lectures available to download, search 'the usual sources' for "goljan audio"

I mean amongst students. I felt similarly blasé about preclinical exposure to patients until I actually experienced what it was like to be a patient with a doctor who couldn't communicate well.


It's not as if it's 'good communication or good understanding of science'. I genuinely think the disparity in terms of science isn't as great as people might think. I also think that good clinical skills are more difficult to acquire than the knowledge... science is the easy bit as far as I'm concerned.

Either way, I'm not really talking of course layouts, I'm more talking about attitudes amongst students.


I'm not saying people won't catch up. I just think it's useful for students to be exposed to patients prior to clinical years, despite not necessarily knowing much clinical medicine. Preclinical exposure isn't about the science. It's about building communication and clinical skills. I know these can be acquired later on in the course, but it's hardly a bad thing to have an idea earlier on. It doesn't really get in the way.

Also, that student may well have had more knowledge at the time; how much do you think she remembers of the minutiae of anatomy etc. she was taught?


Why has this turned into a "preclinical exposure = cushy doctor knows no science vs. clinical exposure = brilliantly rounded doctor with excellent communication skills and a vast knowledge of medical sciences"?

It doesn't really work like that, as I'm sure you well know. I would look with scepticism if someone at a more scientifically orientated school (other than Oxbridge) claimed to understand and know lots more science than I do and I'm sure the communication and clinical skills will balance out after the duration of the course too.

yeah I got it thanks again, much appreciated! just tomorrow left for you guys isn't it.. you going home or?