The correct headline should be as follows: "Engineering students do not view themselves as caring as medical students do." Key point being that these are not studies done on 'action', but rather on 'cheap speech'. I can claim to be the most empathetic person alive, but will happily walk out the room and flip off a beggar asking for change while still believing I am empathetic as I may subconsciously not recognize the act.
This is a huge problem with these kind of studies, and imho, these studies are fairly worthless. If you want to test this kind of thing, pretend to be a beggar outside each faculty and see which students actually help the most rather than say they will help the most.
For example, I've seen a ton of studies on happiness.. for example studies that report on the happiest countries. How do they control for cultural imperatives? I think we all know people who consider depression etc to be character flaws. I'd go as far as to say most people feel pressure to represent themselves as happy and content. Being honest about yourself is seriously difficult, even when you're the only one listening.
It makes sense because doctors require a high level of empathy whereas surgeons need to be better under pressure, be able to hold longer focus, etc. which are qualities of psychopaths.
Is it people who go into surgery care less? Or only people who care less can handle a career in surgery, where you typically have no bond to the patient, see many more people die (potentially due your own limitations or outright mistakes) and even when they live, you may see them for a follow-up exam or two, but not really ever again?
There seems to be huge down-sides for an empathic surgeon and very little emotional up-side.
I've accompanied a patient to different GPs within a surgery, to at least ten different hospitals, both A&E units and wards. I've visited some mental health hospitals on top of that.
A couple of these were private. The rest were NHS. (One of the private MH hospitals was significantly abusive, probably illegal.)
I have seen some shocking patient care from all levels of staff; HCAs through nurses through FY1s, FY2s, registrars and consultants. The NHS complaints process is sub-optimal and doesn't appear to do much to actually prevent problems happening in future.
But I have also met many more staff who care deeply about their patients and who do their best within the constraints.
Please don't make the mistake of accusing most people in the NHS of doing a poor job of caring when that's just not true.
Chelsea & Westminster A&E and their burns unit.
Hillingdon (an orthopedic ward; and an ITU) (before they rebuilt it)
*UCH critical care unit.
I've only ever had positive experiences with the NHS so far.
They've saved both my life in an emergency and my father's life too.
In fact, I've seen it with my own eyes. The patient surveys are issued by the hospitals. I've actually seen nurses deciding not to issue survey forms to patients that they have pissed off or treated badly.
Not only that, my immediate family have been to hospitals (3 different trusts, 5 hospitals) 121 times (we have some persistent complicated medical problems) and not one visit has been consistent, on time, complete and they have put us at extreme risk on 18 separate occasions. We've had medical record mix ups, wrong procedures booked and even on one surgical appointment, they got my blood type completely wrong to the point if they'd had to transfuse, I wouldn't be here to whinge about it now.
I have received 5 separate apology letters from the director of medicine in one London hospital due to fuck ups.
It barely works.
As a side point, I've worked for the NHS on contract a couple of times and it's an utter mess from a management perspective as well. Money spills out of holes like water and little is delivered.
Then read here, the comments:
Then ask people around you.
That's a link to a pdf document. Can you quote the part you are referring to? I can see “Safe, high quality, coordinated care” at 74.5% and “Building closer relationships” at 80.8%
All the rest is confirmation bias and unrepresentative. People like to moan. 10/1 ratio and all that.
They only give the surveys to people they don't piss off. That has been observed by myself on numerous occasions.
Surveys are sent by an organisation that is independent of the trusts. Patients are chosen at random.
I don't know what you saw, but it was not the patient experience survey that you linked to.
Afterwards, he didn't fill out a patient survey.
The patient experience survey is not for serious events like your father's.
There are other methods used to capture that kind of information. The Hospital Event Statistics database is one method.
I fully accept (I've already said in this thread) that the NHS complaints procedure is sub-optimal. Often people say that complaining is as traumatic as the event. People seem to understand that mistakes happen, but when clinicians appear to lie about those events most people are (rightly) hurt and outraged. I've seen a lot of improvement in the complaints handling of one trust in one county; I have no knowledge about other complaints departments. (But I suspect they're pretty bad.)
There are organisations like PALS which should be feeding information back to the trust, even if you're not making a complaint. They should also be helping you with the procedure of making a complaint if that's what you want to do.
LINks don't talk about individual events, but should listen to people talking about general experiences.
I'm not sure what can be done about the process of recording patient and relative experience after serious awful events. I welcome any suggestions.
> I've seen them withhold these from the patients intentionally and have had to ask for the forms
That would be illegal if it was happening wrt the patient experience survey.
The link that you provided tells us so.
> Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Luckily, staff on hospital wards have nothing to do with collecting anything connected to the patient experience survey. Again, what you saw was not part of the patient experience survey.
They also missed a key tidbit from the original news release. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130117084854.ht...
The computing students (who were found to be as empathetic as others once controlling for gender) were taught using problem-based learning techniques - i.e., working in teams on real-world problems and projects. The other group was taught using traditional methods (lecture, rote memorization).
"For computer engineering students, the differences were largely eliminated. The researchers have a theory about why: the computer engineering students are taught with PBL, problem-based learning, which is not the case for the applied physics students. Chato Rasoal believes this can influence the degree of empathy."
Engineering (and math and science) professors need to improve how they teach. Here are 3 simple, research-backed tips for doing so: 1) incorporate everyday examples in your teaching, 2) use tools and techniques to improve student spatial visualizations skills, and 3) talk with and interact with your students (out of class and online): http://www.engageengineering.org/
> Noun. trick cyclist (plural trick cyclists)
1. (UK, slang) A psychiatrist
My ability to detect British humor through text must be pretty poor, because it took several re-reads and a Googling of "trick cyclist" to finally notice the sarcasm/satire.
That would make an excellent browser plugin.
I don't appreciate the "Engineers are ice cold" rhetoric. I can't tell if its satirizing the research or if they are just link baiting but this article seems to portray all engineers as terrible people.
The register is pretty awful rag and full of stupid annoying link-baity trash.
This is normally confined to the headline or the summary line, but sometimes applies to longer pieces.
Self-reported "data" is useless.