And why are so many stories so unquestioning about these runaway surgical Twitter practices? Just look at this frame grab from a Google search showing all the stories (so far) on one hospital team’s surgical Twitter exploits. One story stated:
“Senior hand fellows…when not actively involved in the surgery, sat at a laptop just outside the operating suite and tweeted real-time updates during the procedure, according to a hospital press release. According to the Twitter feed, expert teams of hand surgeons rotated in and out of the operating room throughout the surgery.”
Oh, phew, their hands were tweeting when their hands were not operating! I might rather that my surgeons – even when not actively involved in the operation and when rotating out of the OR – would just rest their digits and not flex them digitally. But what an old-fashioned guy I am.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
August 25, 2010 at 10:13 pmI would worry, extra, if my surgeon used Twitter while I was in the OR, opened up, under anesthesia and under her care.
(It seems like a very bad idea, common sense and outcome-wise.)
Jennifer Brokaw
August 25, 2010 at 10:58 pmWe’re in the Twitter era. It’s only going to get worse. Digital distractions are going to continue to detract from patient care, while the broadband information era will improve it. Tough balance.
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
August 30, 2010 at 8:06 amSounds like it’s for the birds. Who knows? Maybe the keyboard activity strengthens digital muscles and promotes hand-eye coordination. In other words, we should consider this to be actual surgical training.
Damian M.
August 31, 2010 at 8:33 amNot surprised at all! But why Twitter…wouldn’t Facebook or any other social community be better, for so-called, surgical training. There are only 140 characters you can use in Twitter.
Rick Evans
September 1, 2010 at 7:10 amI would doubly worry that after twittering during my surgery he would t-bone my Toyota with his Caddy Escalade as he tweeted while running a red light. If he can’t stay focused on something as critical as surgery what else can he focus on.
Arnon Krongrad, MD
September 9, 2010 at 7:15 pmIt’s not likely this was about surgical training. For that you can use closed circuit, video, and other, better devices. Much more likely this was initiated by the hospital marketing department, who can bring about all sorts of innovative ideas: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304703104575173952145907526.html FYI, this story was also subject of a Psychology Today post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scrub-rinse-repeat/201009/scalpel-suction-tweet
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like