Collaborating, meeting, and sharing with inspiring people in the academic world of EM
I hesitate to disagree with consecutive "tweet posts", but I think I must as so many people visit here for reliable information. Such posts are misleading and are really one of the major downsides to this "FOAMed" learning -- or whatever the kids are calling it these days. It's a modern way to pass along mis-information and dogma. Early in the slides in this post, "goals" of sepsis care are listed to include a CVP 8-12 and a MAP >65. Although many "experts" may agree with these "goals", they are NOT supported by the literature and MANY "experts" strongly disagree with these goals. It is concerning to see such (mis)information presented without explanation or warning...I fear too many "early" learners take such suggestions as "gospel", especially with such (well-deserved) educator's names as contributors listed on the main page. And this is after only reviewing the first 15 slides.With both concern and genuine respect, HH(and this was
Thank you for taking your time to visit this site and address these important issues. Free Open Access Meducation (FOAM) is a concept created by Mike Cadogan (@sandnsurf) a co-author of the blog Life in the Fast Lane. The concept is very simple and that is to disseminate valuable medical education online at no cost. One of its other goals is to provide information that is evidence based or at least information that’s relevant to medical education. The fact that this information is online makes its transparency a major asset as well. This allows for us to supplement our incomplete knowledge with people providing the evidence or providing their way of doing things to help us provide better care. It’s called collaboration and that’s at the heart of the FOAM concept. We have all accepted that we don’t know it all but we collaborate and learn from each other (Distributive Intelligence). Another advantage of this concept is getting input from different physicians all over the world. These tweets are taken mostly from attendings at academic institutions where they are involved in teaching residents and medical students. The concept is that we can still learn bits and pieces of information in 140 characters or less. There are tweets as well where a link to the literature has been provided. Dr. Cooney (@EMEducation) the person who tweeted the learning pearls you have pointed out is an emergency physician and educator from Pennsylvania. FOAM is not for everybody, but you also have to think that people are different and maybe others can benefit from this mode of learning. Examples of medical educators who share information via Twitter (140 characters or less): Amal Mattu (@amalmattu) Michelle Lin (@M_Lin) Robert Cooney (@EMEducation) Scott Weingart (@emcrit) Haney Mallemat (CriticalCareNow) Minh Le Cong (@rfdsdoc) Michelle Johston (@Eleytherius) Laleh Gharahbaghian (@SonoSpot) All I do is curate the information on a weekly basis and post it here so people can review it, research it, and learn it. My hopes are that if there’s any mis-information, as you have pointed out, for someone to provide us with the appropriate literature so we can all learn. The bottom line is better patient care through collaboration. We can all improve the care of patients if we collaborate and share information whichever way we find it more convenient. We should also ask the validity of the information we read, or that is handed down to us as you have done with your comment and I thank you for that. This in no way is a substitute for the primary literature or the textbook. There’s plenty of literature in general education showing that twitter works as a learning tool. Teachers are using Twitter and it demonstrates students engage more actively with the study material when it is incorporated into social media. Social media is something students are already using in their daily living, they feel pretty comfortable with it. So, why not use this tool they are familiar with and use it to engage them in active learning? I thank you again for reading and commenting on this post.
Hey HH: I actually welcome your constructive comment about the possible interpretation of content posted on free social media sites. It brings up a bigger picture question of - how do we know what we read is valid and standard of care? My argument is that we don't know and should look at everything with a skeptical, analytic, evidence-based eye. This will be part of learning about digital literacy for junior learners as they try to filter so much information coming at them.Eventually, crowd-sourced feedback will shed light on things, like you have about the "goals of sepsis", but not quite in real time.All we can do in the meantime is try to put out as much true information as possible from our end as educators and emergency physicians to combat some less reliable sources. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the blog.