This is a conversation between Anne Marie Cunningham (@amcunningham), a GP and Clinical Lecturer, based in the UK and I (@DrVes). It took place on Twitter yesterday and is summarized below. The tweets were not edited for grammar or spelling.@amcunningham: Web 2.0 for Emergency Physicians http://bit.ly/uFnA0 .... would love examples of how web2.0 has helped docs with work.
@DrVes: I have written several abstracts with academic physicians I met via my blog or their blog.
@amcunningham: OK... yes, I know about academic relevance. i find the same. But I want to know about clinical use. Ran out of space in tweet:) but have you ever found web 2.0 content useful in your clinical work? you still do clinical work?
@DrVes: This is trickier. It depends whether you trust the resource or not. Sometimes, I provide links of selected resources on my sites to my patients, for example, videos how to use nasal saline rinse. Web 2.0 has a lot of uses for physician/patient communication, it's a pity so (relatively) few physicians benefit from it.
@amcunningham: right!!! but if I am to start teaching students about this I need some real life examples of how useful. And not around yet.
@DrVes: Web 2.0: A blog website is one of the best ways to establish your online identity and educational credibility as a physician. I use my own websites to refer to links I collected, tips, experience pearls, etc. Web 2.0 allows you to create your own section of the web that you trust, e.g. your own blog, best medical links, etc.
@amcunningham: uhm maybe it is different for a generalist but I need to be good for searching for info all the time. saving stuff not so relevant.
@DrVes: Saving info allows you to search it... :) I have experience using Web 2.0 both as "generalist" and specialist - it helps either way... I also follow a few people in my specialty that often select what's relevant from med news and provide a critical view. This presentation aims at answering the question "Why a physician should use Web 2.0?" http://bit.ly/jsQSL (101 slides)
@amcunningham: Uhmmm, you don't follow me [on Twitter] so missed me tweeting this paper by Richard Smith from 1996- still VERY pertinent http://bit.ly/tHQ8L
@DrVes: A good 1996 BMJ review http://bit.ly/tHQ8L but it doesn't even mention UpToDate! KevinMD can't practice without it... :) Did you know that UpToDate was launched in 1992? http://bit.ly/Yf2zB - It wasn't even quoted in this 1996 BMJ review: http://bit.ly/tHQ8L
@amcunningham: was uptodate around in 1996???
@DrVes: You sound like you would like to explore the skeptic point of view of Web 2.0 in medicine - a blog post would be a good start.
@amcunningham: oh, I have blogged! http://bit.ly/el80o http://bit.ly/18xrUm and I am sure I will blog again! yes, I am a skeptic.
@DrVes: I knew from your first Twitter reply that you were a skeptic about Web 2.0 use in medicine. And that's perfectly fine. Reply to @Berci too... :)
@amcunningham: without real-life examples, of myself and others, to be anything other than sceptical in this point in time would be foolish. There is a place of web2.0... discussing how guidelines etc are implemented in practice... but I see next to none of this yet. i have tried to use forums like doc2doc to start these conversations without success. i have tried crowdsourcing for clinical info on twitter without success. i believe it could work and maybe i should blog about that! good point:)
Generally, I am a proponent of Web 2.0 use in medicine but I fully appreciate the validity of the arguments of the skeptics who doubt its usefulness. Also, I may have been the first who used the term "Web 2.0 in Medicine" in articles and presentations back in October 2005.
This is one of my presentations on Web 2.0 in Medicine, updated in 04/2009:
Related:
The same conversation on Twitoaster.
Image source: OpenClipArt, public domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.