- 263
- 8 200 675
Rahul Patwari
Registrace 2. 04. 2006
These videos are meant to help medical students (and anyone else) solidify knowledge in Emergency Medicine. They have not been peer reviewed and there are occasional errors (most are recorded at 2 am when the kids are asleep!). Please do not use this to guide therapy. Always consult with a doctor since every person is different and everyone's situation varies widely. Other than that, enjoy!
Video
Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Airways
zhlédnutí 447Před 9 měsíci
This video is about Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Airways
Intraosseous Line Placement
zhlédnutí 192Před 9 měsíci
This video is about Intraosseous Line Placement
Patient Safety 02
zhlédnutí 411Před 9 měsíci
Patient Safety #2 with Dr. David Ansell and Dr. Suparna "Nina" Dutta
RMC Practitioner: Overview of Clinical Thinking Skills
zhlédnutí 139Před 9 měsíci
RMC Practitioner: Overview of Clinical Thinking Skills
Clinical Reasoning 02b: Data gathering example
zhlédnutí 347Před 9 měsíci
Clinical Reasoning 02b: Data gathering example
Clinical Reasoning 02c: Illness Scripts
zhlédnutí 418Před 9 měsíci
Clinical Reasoning 02c: Illness Scripts
Clinical Reasoning 03a: Making a Differential Diagnosis
zhlédnutí 439Před 9 měsíci
Clinical Reasoning 03a: Making a Differential Diagnosis
Clinical Reasoning 03b: thresholds testing
zhlédnutí 244Před 9 měsíci
Clinical Reasoning 03b: thresholds testing
Love this little cigs 😂
I love your videos!! they are nice and short with clear visuals!
great lecture sir ....
Very easy to understand. Thanks your nice presentation. We hope more videos with good examples.
this is GREAT love all the many examples and comparisons and different views. Thank you, grateful med student
Excellent. Thank you!
Amazing explanation Thank youuu:))
Think that high specificity means the test is good ruling out disease, and high sensitivity means the test is good at ruling in disease (because it's good at picking up actual disease presence cases, even if it is not very specific e.g. for a high sensitivity but low specificity test?)
Why 3 new cases and not 4?
Remarkably helpful.
That's very nice and helpful thanks ✨
great video!
Very useful. Thank you
Hi, I have a question. I don't know how to obtain the same result multiplying probabilities and odds. Supose you have a 0.5 probability of event A and 0.5 probability of event B. As we multiply both events we get a 0.25 probability of event A|B. Now, I want to the same calculation using odds. 0.5 probability = 1:1 in odds. So, 1x1=1 that is equal to 1/(1+1) = 0.5. I cant find where is the error.
thank you so much but the sum of person years is 88 not 80 !!!!
Good work!
This was very helpful, thank you. But for this specific patient would we not want to change her metoprolol also with her history of asthma? Would we do that during this visit or wait until the infection (pneumonia) is cleared?
Excellent explanation, thank you!
Thank you, but can you be more straight to the point in your next videos
Excellent work Sir! One Question: how did we found the Standard dev of population?
Thank you for this!!!
Thank you for the explanation ☺ I love Indian channel, they can explain many things in a simple and clear way
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌😀😀😀😀😀😁😁😁😁😁😂😁😂😁😂😅😅😅😅😇😇🙌🙌🙌
Prevalence. Errbody is involved at x time. Count them all including the RIPs, substract those.
Thanks, very nicely explained.
Thank you! It is helpful
History of violating procedure isn’t necessarily bad… it is how the American way won two world wars… note adversary challenge in that we didn’t adhere to our doctrine all that well.
“We need to train you up because you shouldn’t have made that mistake” - look again at Dekker and also at Todd Conklin and Bob Edwards, they’re all going to call this out as inappropriate blame. Gary Wong too.
In this, note also the difference in Complication and Complexity. Ordered systems, clear and complicated, are deterministic while complex are not. You can’t make rules for non-deterministic systems. You can’t analyze such. Results vary and you’ll always have unintended consequences.
With that, Cynefin, Dave Snowden, Sense-Making, “Estuaries,” John Boyd.
There’s a problem with assuming violation of clear procedure to be reckless. Sometimes procedures simply don’t fit. The simple or clear ones most of all. But too complicated are to cumbersome to know. The real point is procedures should be viewed as guidelines not rules as they can never account for context.
I’ve found a better chart getting at binning out these categories from James Reason via Pilots Who Ask Why May 15th, 2023 “Killing the Blame Game.” In this updated version, you can have deliberate rules violation leading to a systemic problem thus leaving the operator blameless. Alternately you can also get to specifically seeing the operator blameless. Were procedures violated? Yes - Were procedures Usable? Understandable? Accurate? - No, the context meant they were either not usable or not accurate. This sends you to Could a similar person have made the same answer? This should obviously be Yes but for the sake of devil’s advocate, we’ll say No. Was training insufficient? Obviously No but for the devil we’ll say yes and you get only to possibly negligent not definitely so. Should we say no as it cannot be sufficient as you can’t train to everything in complexity, you end up with system-induced error implying no blame to the operators. I’d be cautious with any such flows, but if you need one, I’d update yours to this one.
incredible...tysm
Bad video ...shame on you
Very well simplified, however, I though the denominator for the incidence would have been 5 and not 6 considering that the 6th person developed cancer after the 10 year period...?
Hello Dr. Patwari! At the latter part, where did you get the 10.9 crude mortality rate of the ref. population? Thank you!
Awesome!!
I think there is 4 new case and not 3 could you explain it?
I was thinking about it too
I think so as well
This video is 10 years old but it just saved me in my graduate level epi class!
omak bus
Think the incidence calculation is wrong! I get 50%, (3 cases over 6 at risk)
There are 4 new cases. So, it should be 4 over 6, right?
This was very spot on. Thank you!! Which app did u use to do the video 🙏🏽
Couldn't be any simpler. Thank you!!!
Hi Dr. Rahul..I have a concern about this calculation! Could I pls know why you added the years after when they got the disease when it comes to calculate the person years? As an example in patient 1 he exposed and got disease within one year.. so he met risk from one year.. so isn't he have 1 person year?
Can you give tpa to a patient who takes plavix? Also no diabetes but prior ischemic stroke with prior tpa administration 10 years ago? Good to give? Also teeth bleeding, whites of the eyes with specs of blood when should we worry.
Thank You Doctor!!!! I’m going to get checked out as I am tired of being in pain!!!!!
That's a nice one. Many thanks!
I almost never comment but I had to here cause I wanted to say thank you so much for the best yet simple explaining you made studying a lot of concept so much easier ………so thank you again
Why do the book have a different strata? Damn I am stressed ToT.... I need to rush everything...
Finally. someone who can explain things with a clear, interesting voice.
Great work!
Amazing presentation of the content!
What a superb explanation!