Friday, April 17, 2009

Approach On Educating Patient

There are different type of patient. One could have a PhD, or diploma, or a medical staff, and one could never been into a school for life. Approaching a patient sometimes could be difficult to do. A lot of medical staff, and medical student are approaching the patient or a community by going to the patient level of education. 
Almost all the books, or lecturer would say ‘be the same level as the patient so that they could understand’ or whatsoever and almost all medical student and medical staff take this words like a gospel . I have seen many people educating a rural community by getting into that level where they are the same as the people that are educating. For example, when talking about tetanus, so make people understand here in Sabah setting (where I am right now), they would say tetanus is like a seizure, or fits. While in my opinion, this is two different things. 


This would not make so much impact in the outcome of the patient but in long term perspective this could be detrimental. This is because when other medical officer is clerking the same person, in medical history they would say that they once having a seizure making the diagnosis and management differ. 

Another example would be in describing thyroid disease or goiter.  In place I am doing my practical right now, people told me that ‘beguk’ means mumps. While from my experience in Queen Elizabeth hospital in Kota Kinabalu, ‘beguk’ sometimes refer to goiter. Look how much impediment is created here. 

Why would not a medical staff tell a patient the true name of the disease instead of creating a new one in their own language?  A year ago, when I was clerking a patient, the patient said that he once had a ‘paru-paru berair’ to me and I would write in my clerking sheet that the person had a history of pleural effusion or acute pulmonary oedema…(?), while that patient is actually having a pneumonia. So my history was wrong. Was it my fault? Or it is the fault of the previous medical officer that tell the patient a laymen term, too layman term. 

My idea is to change the way a medical staff or student or any doctors whatever educating their patient. For term such as pneumonia, or mumps, or hepatitis B, and etc, should be describe as it is and never be change to other things. However, the explanation part should be detailed. As example, when telling a patient regarding their hyperuracemia, you should tell him/her the exact word, hyperuracaemia. Then you would spend 5-10 minutes telling what is hyperuracaemia. This better than telling a patient that he/she has a ‘kencing masam’ (sour urine), and with only this, a patient may not know what is really going on with him/her. Later in the future, when he/she describe ‘kencing masam’ to another medical officer, I believed no one will know what the hell is that. 

Another things is not to over simplify a fact. For example, when telling a patient regarding immunization, a medical personal would only tell a community or patient something like this. “ Immunisation is done to prevent illness in future, it is not harmful and it is quite safe, your children must take it’. Easy. Simple. Less than 1 minute, and a patient would always comply to take immunization. On the other hand, the patient or community would always never know what is actually a vaccine and why it is given to them. 

Another thing is not to lie to the people. For example when a disease does not have a cure, then why should lie telling that the disease can be cure. For example, if someone have acute viral conjunctivitis, there are not antiviral use to treat because it is self limiting. But many medical personal out there would tell the patient to take this, take that, this would cure you. Why don’t you tell that this problem has not definitive treatment but you can treat the symptoms and tell that it is self limiting. 

Many medical personnel would never think of educating patient but only think to make patient comply. Why? Do we need to keep our community in the same level as this. Of course I am only referring to our community or my community here in Sabah. If someone did not know, here in Sabah, most of the people education of medicine is the same as other places in the world 20 years back, meaning that they were too further in the past. Not progressing into the future. Whose to be blamed here? Not the public not the farmer or fishermen who are lazy to learn, but to medical staff who are lazy to teach. 

Everything is always about time. It is too time consuming to teach detail about a disease. I have no time to talk that much. There are thousand patient waiting for me out there. 

This is the kind of responses you would always get. It is enough if you say honestly, I am lazy to teach. 

We did not need to do a full hour of talk and full hour sitting in a clinic teaching a patient. We did not need to make a patient a doctor yet we need to make them know. It is our responsibility to make them understand about their problem. 

I choose to give a talk on acute viral conjunctivitis today in district health clinic. I would not choose a talk on breastfeeding, or balanced diet because this thing is always has a time to teach. Continuously, people would start to learn regarding this. However, not so many person out there know what is acute viral conjunctivitis even though they usually get it. 

I hope, later in the future, our community would be educated enough to understand. I hope that someday, nurses, assistant medical officer, medical officer or anyone else would try their best to correct the wrong side of educating a patient nowadays. 

In my conclusion, in approaching to educate a patient, I would always spend more time, use the actual term then describe it so patient understand, tell the truth, be a teacher. A teacher would always teach and make student understand. Why don’t the medical staff be a teacher and not only a medical staff forever. 

Friday, April 10, 2009

Leadership Theory

1. Dato' Seri Najib has become our prime minister. I'm so impress because i have been through 3 leadership now in Malaysia. It's a long time for me. haha. 

2. So until currently, there are 3 prime minister since i was born. Dr.Mahathir, Pak Lah, and now Dato Najib. What's the difference between the three of them? I guess, there is a lot of differences. But from what i can see, politics in Malaysia becoming more unstable and unstable everyday. 

3. Just after Dato Najib became Prime Minister, BN lose 2 small election. It was shocking since  I thought people don't like Tun Abdullah so that they vote the opposition. But then i realize now that people don't hate Tun Abdullah, they hate BN. People don't have trust on BN anymore. 

4. Why is it like this? For me, let us go to the root of the problem. Leardership wise, i have to admit that there is no 100% leader practicing leadership skills nowadays. Does not matter when we talk about America, Indonesia, or even Malaysia, the leader has become a person who have power only. And to have power and rule is two different things. 

5. They are a few type of leader in this leader. One type of leader is a leader who think that they have power and by enforcing a strict law and force people to follow their decision make them look like a leader. A type of leader like this is like Hitler or whoever leader you hate in this world. But we must not said that this kind of leader is not a good leader because history proof that they conqueer the world more than the other type of leader. However, the consequences is, people hate them, forever, if not all, most of the people labelled this kind of leader as a devil. Authocratic leader. 

If we go back to Islamic history which i like to refer because so many thing we can learn from Islamic History, we will go the Khalifa Ar-rasyidin time period. Where Saiyidina Umar was a Khalifa. As we all know, Sayidina Umar is a very strict leader. No one can offend him. He will not tolerate the opposition. And what he had done make Islam world so powerful and peaceful. This is an example of the correct way of using this kind of leadership. But then, what happen is the opposite thing. When sayidinia Umar past away, people who had to accept the strict life during his period try to bring the restriction away. They stand up and then the Khalifa Osman and Ali time period was a chaos. As Sayidina Umar is no more to rule, people rule themselves and never listen to their new Khalifa. 

6. Another type of leader is a tolerable leader. A leader who can tolerate and so open to the opposing side. This type of leader can be called Mr.Nice Guy as called to Tun Abdullah. Tun Abdullah tolerate and open to everyone. The good part is people does not feel restrict and he was seen as a good role model to everyone. However, the problem arise in this kind of leader when people trying to step on their head. Trying to rule themselves and look at the leader as weak and hopeless. This problem could crush the whole system of leadership and I believe that this kind of leader, even if they good, they will not last long. When we go back to Islamic History, this kind of leader is like Sayidina Uthman. He was a very nice leader but when he was so nice, people try to get out and don't want to accept him as a leader and also some people dare to demand a land for themselves to rule. Same as what happen when Tun Abdulah was ruling Malaysia. 

7. Another type of leader, is a leader who is strict but in the same time emphaty to his people. This kind of leader is hard to found and i hope the new prime minister could be like this. Instead of just enforcing law and make people follow it, this kind of leader will think in the position of the people, how hard people have to follow his decision and make decision based on the ability of the people to follow. 

8. I think another type of leader i would mention here is a leader where he use a power to lead not to lead with power. This is a very dangerous type of leader. This kind of leader will try to find and search for power and then using the numerous power, he will make himself a leader by force, or by the power he has, it can't be called force anymore. 

9. No matter how much type of leader in this world, people would always know which one is a good leader by instict. If people feel that the leader is to strict and does not listen to the voices of people or they did listen but they have to force themselves to listen, this is not a good leader. 

A good leader for me is a leader where people feel comfortable and feel that they were appreciated by the leader, and the leader always being in the same level of the people. 

10. I read regarding Elizabeth Wong where she told the people not to call her YB because she said that she was the 'kuli' of the people make sense. A leader, is a 'kuli' of people. 

When asked to a leader, he must always said that his people are his bos and when his people were asked, they will say definitely our leader is the bos.