List Archives

Mon, 6 May 2002 13:29:49 +0930

Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:35:54 +1000 
From: "Gordon S. Doig" <gdoig@med.usyd.edu.au> 
To: trauma-list@trauma.org 
Subject: Re: Changing the Language 
Reply-To: trauma-list@trauma.org 

I always become intrigued by the vigorous discussion regarding MV 'accident'

vs. 'crash'. As a proponent of evidence-based medicine (and surgery!!) my 
question is this: Can anyone provide me with any evidence to suggest that 
our patient's care is improved or harmed in any clinically meaningful way, 
shape or form by using one term over the over? 

Gord 

Call me cynical, Gord but i ultimately call it greed on behalf of lawyers.
Greed that comes from the fear that their definition and case may be
challenged by the assertion that calls it in to question. Lose the case ...
heck no!

While i've got you Gord, on or off the list can you just fill me in on how
the JAMA series critical appraisal guides work? Either where i can go
looking to find out, or just a brief overview by yourself if you've got time
(David Crippen suggested you'd be the best person to ask). The reason i want
to know is, my ambulance service has started up a journal club and i want to
be able to make a service available via our website where staff who are
learning how to appraise journal articles well can read something that will
help them to do that. 

This may be a nice commercial break for trauma.org list members who feel
they could benefit with a brief tutorial on this. It might make us think
before we open our mouths about one or two studies that might change the
world (or the way we deliver trauma care) ... and to be honest i feel i am
one of those at times - probably many of us have felt like that at some
stage ;o)

Regards,
Chris Cotton,
Intensive Care Paramedic
South Australia.

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

changing language ... and assessing journal articles