Narrative this website Analysis revealed one new theme that was not appreciated in the established thematic categories. Student narratives often described incidents of involving cynicism. One student writes: By the end of my first shift, the cynicism and skepticism that I was hearing from the staff in the ER was starting to rub off on me. This continued on my next 3-4 shifts. It was on my 5th shift that I believe Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical it went too far. The attending went to interview the patient but a minimal history could be taken as their was an obvious language barrier and the patient was having trouble answering
questions with the pain he was in. When we left the room the attending told me that, “he doesn’t have anything wrong with him. These people always come in for little aches and pains.”
We did a little testing on this gentleman. No imaging. Whether the attending had seen this 100 times before with no pathology involved, this could be the one time the patient had mesenteric Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical ischemia for example. While I believe it’s okay to have a little level of cynicism and skepticism in the ER, you should Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical not let it interfere with your level of care. In this narrative, the student was obviously upset at the about the type of care this patient received due to issues of cynicism and skepticism. Further, this story demonstrates the importance of narration from a student’s perspective. In this situation, the physician may have felt it more appropriate to dedicate his time to higher risk patients but this was not at all what the student perceived. Throughout the narratives the importance of the student’s perspective on the narratives become Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical evident. Students repeatedly describe situations they find inappropriate or unprofessional whereas experienced physicians may disagree. Comparative Data Analysis In examining the relative proportions Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of narrative types present (positive, negative, hybrid), chi-2 analysis revealed no significant difference between our data and the data from Karnieli-Miller’s work (p = 0.081) [3,7]. In examining persons cited in the narratives, we identified a greater number of persons cited
per narrative (1.7 people cited per narrative versus 0.6 people cited per many narrative). The overall chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the type of persons cited with the difference attributed to attendings (ASR = 6.82), residents (ASR = 7.06), consultants (ASR = 2.32), and other students (ASR = 2.71). The EM students in our study were more likely to reference attendings then the IM students in Karnielli-Miller, et al (42.0% vs. 13.7%). EM students were less likely to reference residents (3.7% vs. 19.0%), consultants (2.4% vs. 6.0%), and other students (0.2% vs. 1.8%). When examining overall theme domains, EM students were significantly more likely to cite the medical-clinical domain (92.7%, 95% CI 89.8-95.0%) than IM students (82.3%, 95% CI 77.6-86.4%)(p < 0.001).