Should All Doctors Undertake Medical Research?

brownbear

Member
Author
Sep 24, 2016
272
Tinnitus Since
July 2016
Cause of Tinnitus
Sudden sensorineural hearing loss ? cochlear hydrops
There is a question often asked at interviews for senior medical positions:

Should all doctors undertake research?

I am interested to know what non medics think of this question......
 
I think they should be encouraged but not made to..... lots of love glynis
 
Yes, to keep up with their field. Or at least give them mandatory exams every few years to make sure they are up to date with new developments. I wonder for example how many ENTs know about hidden hearing loss and other recent discoveries.
 
Two ENTs I recently saw had not heared of neuromodulation...I encouraged them to read about it in the nicest possible way...there's a clinic in London and they weren't aware despite being London based...I'm hoping there are areas they do keep up with. I always presumed doctors had to keep up with the latest research?
 
I always presumed doctors had to keep up with the latest research?
You'd think so, but no. ENTs are among the worst because you can make a good living with just a few surgical tricks up your sleeve. That's why so many of us get the short shrift from them. Medicine is a business and there is no incentive for them to deal with us. They really don't want to know, because at this time there aren't many known options and good holistic care would take time, learning and the making of contacts, and why do that when you can make a motza shoving grommets into snotty kids for nervy mums. I personally think that the ENT is not the right practitioner for our condition, and Neuro-otolgy needs to step it up, but at this point, leaving aside questions of MEM-otomies or oval window reinforcement which are still fairly fringe, a good GP could manage/co-ordinate with specialist Audiology, psychology etc and provide a good baseline service within the existing models of care and without needing the opinion of an ENT, at least with the way things work in this country.

Michael Lee's story and his dealings with the brighter side of the UK NHS is a good, working example of how this can be achieved with a true, holistic approach. (I'd tag him but..er...I don't know how)
 
It really depends on person. I had experience with great docs and with shit docs. Some care, some dont. Thing is that when it comes to T, there is simply not sufficient research or even awareness. When it comes to ENT, most of them are aware that given that there is no cure for T. Two, T is caused by something dangerous in extremely low percentage of cases and that can generally be rulled out by CT scan (that should be general MO for any ENT doc when patient comes with T anyways). Three, ENT generally checks your ears and sinuses. For most times, he can most likely easily link it together with onset of T. If not, off you go to audiology.

Anywho, from many of ENT doc perspective, T is intrusive psychological aspect, but generally not dangerous physically and dangers can be rulled out easily. What many complain is that ENT docs arent aware of habituation treatments. These are however few and far between and even ENT docs at T clinics many times arent doing enough to inform their colleagues about their very own existance in first place. My first ENT doc wasnt even aware there is Tinnitus clinic in my own city. I had to google it. She was really surprised, never heard about it. And this is city with half a dozen hospitals where generally all ENT docs know each other. And many ENT docs tend to dismiss psychological affect of T on patient as something out of their scope and at most reffer you to therapist. Holistic approach to treatment of T is something that only few docs around globe knows and even in their cases its mostly because they saught information and education themselves so they can perfect their skills and help T patients as much as possible.
 
Should all doctors undertake research?
No. (With the possible exception of academic appointments where the appointment could plausibly require both clinical time and research time.)

Let's think about this for a moment. Who is paying for the time spent doing research? Are insurance companies going to pay for this? Are the doctors supposed to spend time getting grants to fund their research? This is very hard so the vast majority of doctors who do not specialize in research are not going to win grants.

Who is going to pay for the lab space and infrastructure to do research? The research assistants? The support personnel to run labs, make images, etc?

Medical practices and most hospitals (except those associated with academic medical centers) simply don't have the infrastructure to support research.

There is a also reason people specialize as clinicians or researchers (or in some cases a combination). Some people have more ability or interest in dealing with patients and some people have more ability or interest in doing research.
 
I think the problem with ENTs is that there is just too much N and T, but not enough E. Sinus issues, tonsils, voice issues, etc. take precedence. Perhaps it should be split into NTs and Es.
 
Aaron, I think you're overthinking research. It can be as simple as writing up a case or an observational series of cases with something in common and submitting them to the publications that reflect best your Specialty. You don't need Labs etc. to do that. All you need is good record keeping, accurate notes and a capacity to critically analyse your work against the work of others which they should be capable of at graduation. They learn these things as part of their study, even we Nurses do it, particularly if we specialize. If they have enough interest they will and do do this.
 
Just to be clear I am NOT referring to continuing professional development (keeping up with research, exams, courses etc) which is compulsory and assessed in most countries. I am specifically referring to doctors undertaking their own research projects.
 
There's nothing to stop any Doctor enrolling in existing research, trials etc. by contributing data, recommending and enrolling patients that may meet any criteria, publishing their own cases and observations. There are many ways Drs contribute to research without having to go the whole white lab-coat. Its really about interest and inclination. Even simply filing an adverse reaction report is contributing to research.
 
@brownbear
Not necessarily so. I think with CPD and patient loads, doctors are already pushed for time.
Howevear, if time permits, then it would be hugely beneficial to the medical community and patients alike.
 
I think the problem with ENTs is that there is just too much N and T, but not enough E. Sinus issues, tonsils, voice issues, etc. take precedence. Perhaps it should be split into NTs and Es.

I don't think every doctor needs to do medical research but they should all be current on the medical research within their field. My father a doctor and he stays current with the latest medical research and developments within his field. In some specialties this is less important tonsils and tonsils understanding have not changed that much over the past 30 years. But medical information in fields like neurology and hearing sciences has completely transformed our understanding of those areas since 2005 (the hearing science updates occurring mainly in the neuron CNS portion of the field). If you working solely off of 1990s information in those fields your failing as a doctor.
 
It would provide an enormous pool of data, simply following patients progress could help with research. Patients won't see an ENT or relevant professional again if they're told there at the end of the line medically, thus making it hard to gather any stats for future patients.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now