Our department had a survey of the senior doctors a few weeks ago, to see what people think about the state of affairs there.
We all got sent a copy of the results yesterday, including any comments made.
There was a section on the weekly newsletter, of which I am the editor in chief, and the only editorial writer. People generally seem to be happy, but some are not. Of course, you can’t please all the people all of the time, and I intend to be publicly gracious in my next editorial “thanks so much for your honest feedback” etc etc. But for you, dear readers, I’m going to vent honestly.
I’m not going to apologize for the length of my editorial or of the newsletter as a whole. We publish what is submitted. If any of these people read a medical journal from cover to cover I’d be amazed. Articles like “The effect of substance Q on NMDA receptors in rat testicles” are just asking to be skipped over (with apologies to the authors of said article). Reading just the bits that are important to you is a skill we all need to learn. Next.
OK, there’s certainly food for thought in this one. The brain touching thing was educational and at the surgeons instigation, it was also an interesting experience and hence worth a mention in my editorial I felt. Similarly ‘derisive’ is not the right word. Do they mean ‘rude about’ or ‘disrespectful’? I will try to be more careful.
(sic x 2 for the spelling mistakes) I’m sorry and will remember to be more secretive in future. Generally it’s the surgeons in fact with the porsches, expensive holidays and multiple homes (although often no more than one per ex-wife, so possibly not excessive). And actually, the last time I signed up to do an extra orthopaedic trauma list in the weekend, it was cancelled for no technician. Just saying…plus, a Tesla is not a sports car – even a Model S.
I was a little confused about this one. Is it an observation or a suggestion?
and, perhaps most hurtful of all:
