Physician Behavior and Bedside Manners: The Influence of William Osler and the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The practice of medicine changes with time as we develop better techniques for diagnosis and improved therapies for treatment. The art of medicine remains constant over the millennia because human nature is unchanging. Patients bring fear, anxiety, and self-pity into the exam room. It has always been the doctor's responsibility to calm their fears and provide hope. The accomplished doctor has a bedside manner that is humane and compassionate, empathetic and supportive. Students are taught bedside skills, the art of medicine, by our senior, most experienced clinicians. However, in the past 20 years, more of these professors are laboratory scientists, often deficient or unpracticed in their bedside skills. Bernard Lown, the famous Boston cardiologist, wrote in 1996 in his book The Lost Art of Healing (1) how essential bedside behavior is to good medical care. He expressed his concern that important bedside skills are disappearing in our technology-focused practice of medicine. Several medical schools have recommended a new emphasis on improving professionalism. Jock Murray, former dean of the Dalhousie Medical School, speaking to the American College of Physicians in 2006, commented on the general erosion of professionalism and a growing public cynicism about the profession. He called for a new focus on the three core principles of professionalism: competency, the primacy of patient welfare, and social justice. Professionalism is not an attempt to protect physicians' power and status, he noted, but a call to practice medicine in patients' best interests (2). No physician has exerted a greater influence on how physicians should behave than Sir William Osler. His essays on the practice of medicine, his leadership in medical organizations, and his personal charisma established a paradigm that has served as a model for physician behavior at the bedside. His textbook of medicine, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, first published in 1892 (3), was the bible of rational medical therapy for 30 years. He was the first chief of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Medical School, and his leadership at Johns Hopkins transformed American medical care. He led the effort to bring a scientific approach to the care of the patient. Osler famously said, “The practice of medicine is an art based on science” (4) (Figure). Figure Osler at the bedside of a patient. Photo from the Mark Silverman collection. Osler was a unique personality and practiced at a propitious time in medicine. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, medicine was evolving from a practice based on superstition and tradition into a rational biological science. His bedside manners were based on Victorian morals and their notion of the duties of a gentleman. But like the technophobe and iPad enthusiast of today, he eagerly embraced scientific medicine as the new hope for tomorrow. How did William Osler and the Johns Hopkins Medical School influence our current bedside behavior?
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».