Today, I'm going to write about something that came up on my infectious diseases rotation this month.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) just published new guidelines for treating intra-abdominal infections. They came out at the beginning January. Apparently, there's been some debate in the ID world over whether these guidelines have too much industry influence. Several of the authors of the guidelines have connections with drug companies, and several of those drug companies happen to have recently come out with some very broad-spectrum, very expensive new antibiotics. These new antibiotics are part of the guidelines, and they are listed as options to treat intra-abdominal infections while some older, generic antibiotics were excluded because of concerns about resistance.

So there is debate and controversy over these new guidelines. The issue becomes a bit more complicated when you look at it from the hospital's perspective. We try to practice evidence-based medicine, as much as possible, and guidelines from major organizations like the IDSA are important tools in doing that, since they are essentially literature reviews. At a hospital like UM, the hospital's guidelines and policies might be based on the IDSA guidelines.

The question then becomes, if you are responsible for creating your hospital's antibiotic policies, what do you do with these guidelines? If you think there's too much industry bias, do you still base hospital policy on them? Do you ignore them? Do you just take the parts you think are unbiased and ignore the rest? And if you have to go through and figure out which parts are biased and which are not, how is that different than creating your own guidelines and ignoring the IDSA ones?

And if you have a patient with an intra-abdominal infection, and they die, and the patient's family thinks you should have used one of these newer, broad-spectrum antibiotics, then what? The patient's family/lawyers can point to the guidelines and say, look, here are national guidelines that say you could have used this drug. Why didn't you? Then you are left defending the tenuous position that national guidelines don't constitute standard of care.

And yet, if you really think that using the newer antibiotics will unnecessarily increase resistance and cost, you are ethically (and financially) obligated to restrict them.

It's a balance that each hospital has to find on its own. I think a big part of the answer is to look at resistance levels at your hospital, and to decide whether the older antibiotics will work in most cases or not. Cost, as always, is important as well.

In the end, guidelines are just that - guidelines. They shouldn't dictate policy on their own; there should be a significant amount of thought put into the value of the guidelines and of policy changes at a given hospital. That's why there are infectious disease specialty physicians and pharmacists.

We had to watch this film in class today, and I must say I was thoroughly impressed. Emotionally rattled (not sure if this is the best expression). It quietly makes the tears run down your face. Plus great camerawork and otherwise a well-made film.

Basically it's a story about a woman who has to live with AIDS.
She lives the kind of life that probably is a good representation of a lot of other people in the same situation, but it is her spirit that sets her apart and blows you away.

We must be grateful for what we have and make the most out of our future...

A middle-aged Chinese woman came to the clinic who spoke little English. As the only med student on staff that morning who could speak Mandarin Chinese, I was asked to help with the medical interview. While I wasn't obligated to offer translation help, it was a unique opportunity I couldn't pass up. As a result I've realized a few things:

---

Despite being fluent in (conversational) Mandarin, there were many questions I was unable to ask the patient directly. I knew how to say many common medical terms (e.g. hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes), but there were many more that I was simply unable to recall (e.g. cancer) even though I know the words. Furthermore, because I have no training in medical Chinese, there were many things I had to ask in a roundabout way - such as asking the patient if her condition worsened at particular times during her menstrual cycle (that was super awkward).

The work-up on that one patient took about 3 hours. Everything is at least doubled in time due to need to work through a translator (me). If I hadn't been available and willing, there was a translation service over the phone - but that might've been much worse, at least time-wise.

Because we live in an ever-increasingly global world, and particularly in the US as a very diverse country, the value of knowing multiple languages is indispensable, especially in the health care fields. Language still remains as a major barrier in delivering optimal medical care. A second language offers more than simply the ability to translate, as languages are almost invariable tied to cultures. As such, a language may offer some insight into cultural values that may prove very useful when treating a diverse patient population.

When there is a language barrier, the translator is potentially more important than the doctor. The patient looks to you, the translator, as the doctor's words. While a patient may give respectful deference to the doctor, they really look at you to speak the doctor's words and serve as his/her proxy in a sense. Therefore the demeanor and attitude of the translator is critical to ensure open and honest communication.

---

While ideally both doctor and patient speak the same language(s), this is not always possible (indeed, it rarely is). Heck, even if they do speak the same language(s) there may still be communication issues. It is equally unrealistic to require entering medical students to be proficient in more than one language. As such, the role of translators - preferably professional - is critical and often necessary.