November 12, 2006, 2:29 pm

Grand Rounds: One Blogger, One Voice, One Opinion

110

Oh my…

Somebody went to the hoity-toity School of Thermometer Holding!

I remember how hard it was for me to get my pinky perfectly straight.

I’m not sure what has gotten her nursing cap in a wad.

She looks ready to fling that environmentally unfriendly thermometer any second now.

Am I the only one who remembers playing with mercury that came out of a broken thermometer when I was a kid? It was cool…like a tiny liquid bubble.

I certainly didn’t grow a second head or suffer developmental difficulties because of it.

I am, however, pretty sure I just cemented my reputation as a geek…

******************************

I’m about ready to tread on sacred ground.

I’m pretty sure the fur will fly and the medical blogosphere will suck me underground, but I think it has to be said.

I certainly am hearing it through the grapevine known as e-mail, so I know I’m not the only one out there who feels like this.

Grand Rounds has changed.

And not for the better.

*****

I’ve been on all sides of Grand Rounds.

I’ve submitted, had submissions rejected, and been asked to modify submissions (one of which I actually did; the other was published as written). I’ve hosted twice: once in March and once last month; both large ‘Rounds with over fifty submissions.

Here’s what I think is going on. I may raise more questions than I answer, or state an issue for which I have no solution.

What I would like to see happen, in addition to the outcry I’m going to hear, is the start of a dialogue regarding where Grand Rounds has been and where it appears to be going.

It has a wonderful history of both literary and technical submissions of merit. It’s the future I am worried about.

*****

The first issue I’d like to address parallels something occuring in medicine outside the blogosphere:

The assimilation of “private practitioners” – bloggers in this case – into “conglomerates” for lack of a better word.

  • Maybe “communities” is a better word.
  • Communities that flood Grand Rounds with anywhere from 8-10 submissions each week.

(Okay, here comes the naming of a name and before you decide to hit the “next” button or delete Emergiblog from your rolls, hear me out.)

“Healthline”.

  • Now there are some great bloggers there. I know they are great because I read them before Healthline exisited.
  • Dr. Enoch Choi, Dr. Heisn Lei, Dr. Paul Auerbach…those are three right off the top of my head. Great bloggers, all, and I look forward to seeing their posts.

But…is Grand Rounds a place to have posts about back stretching? Nutrition? Is it just me?

  • When I read Grand Rounds I want anecdotal stories, technical information, literary works and not just something I can pick up anywhere else on the web!

When I last hosted, I had exactly eight submissions out of around 57 from Healthline alone. That is 14% from one source. I included all of them because, well, I hate to deny submission to anyone because I know what it feels like to not be included and I felt an obligation as the host to actually be a host and not an editor.

I was wrong.

One of the submissions came with a previous email attached that basically said, “Hey folks! Let’s get as many of our blogs in there as we can! Submit! Submit!”

Okay, I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

So in this case Grand Rounds is being used as a venue for promotion.

Lest you believe I’m picking on Healthline, let me also throw out the name Dr. Fuhrman. I don’t know any Dr. Fuhrman. I certainly know of the gentleman who helps promote Dr. Fuhrman’s books and does most of the actual blog writing, using old quotes from the books.

  • Is this what we need in Grand Rounds? Constant, weekly columns of book promotion?
  • Yes, I’ve read the articles and some I found very interesting. But..again, in Grand Rounds?

But…don’t we ALL use the ‘Rounds as a venue for promotion? Don’t we all want that kick in “hits” that comes from being included? Don’t we all use our blogs to promote ourselves or our interests (Lindsey Buckingham, anyone? I’m not immune…).

The answer is yes, we do. Do I have an answer to the dilemma posed above? Maybe…there are three ways to approach this, in my view:

  • Let every host act as editor.
    • If you don’t think the post belongs in Grand Rounds, then leave it out, repercussions be damned!
    • This works because it levels out the playing field so that each individual blogger, even those in specific blogging “communities” have an equal chance of making the cut.
    • By doing this you are going to elevate the quality of what comes into Grand Rounds because people will try to write up to the standard and not just send in a post to be sending in a post. If you get my drift.
  • Blogging “Communities” – send in a “digest post”!
    • If you have many bloggers you would like to see represented, have one of them act as a “mini-host” and send in a post with links to all the submissions from your community for that week.
    • The Grand Rounds host only has to deal with one submission instead of 8-10 and your post would act as a “mini-rounds” for your area.
  • A Patient Carnival
    • Much of what I see coming into Grand Rounds now are posts aimed at patient education or patient information. Medical bloggers don’t need this and a lot of the patients who read Grand Rounds are pretty medically savvy as it is. So…
    • Start a patient-blog/information related carnival! Call it “Patient Parade” or “The Carnival of Health Consumers” or “HealthFair: Your Life, Your Carnival”. The readership will be there. And it’s an appropriate forum for many of the posts that Grand Rounds has been showcasing these last few weeks.
*****

The second issue I’d like to address is somewhat related to the first, but not necessarily

This issue would be “The Law of Diminishing Returns”.

Back in the “day”, I could get a cup of coffee and sit for two hours on Tuesday morning and read the entire Grand Rounds offering. In fact, I looked forward to it!

Now I’m lucky if I get through a third of what is written. And having a life (and I know it seems I live on the computer…), if I don’t get it read on Tuesday, chances are I won’t get back to it.

Having a post in Grand Rounds used to mean over 1000 hits for about two days running, now it means, oh, maybe 100- 200 hits over normal. Why is this happening? Well, in the case of Emergiblog, it could be that:

  • Depending on the location of the link, not everyone is making it through the entire Grand Rounds or…
  • Whereas we used to get an “Instalanche” from Glen Reynolds over at “Instapundit” when he would mention Grand Rounds was up, he rarely does that anymore or…
  • Less people feel like clicking on the Emergiblog link (hey, like I said, I’m not immune…if I’m dishing it out, I better be able to take it, too!)
The conclusion being that I am more likely to read everything in Grand Rounds if there are, say, 20-30 posts instead of 50-60.
  • IMO, including all posts regardless of merit (as decided by the “host” for the week) leads to an unmanagable number of links to read.
  • IMO, more posts means less readership, and Grand Rounds becomes a less desirable place to submit because of that. It becomes a viscious circle. People will tend to “pick and choose” instead of reading the entire selection.
*****

Now, the final issue I’d like to address is for the future hosts of Grand Rounds.

Themes are fun. You should have one. They are what make Grand Rounds interesting and creative.

But please, please when you add the posts, do these three things:

  • Make the links prominent. Don’t make the reader have to try and figure out what they are linking to.
  • Introduce the post by stating which blog it is from and the title of the post. I decided after my last stint at hosting that linking to both the blog AND the post was overkill.
  • Give a bit of a synopsis of the post in your introduction or a bit of an opinion on what you thought of it as you read it. Was it new and exciting? Say so! Did you disagree? Say so!
*****

Well, there you have it. I’m going to go hunker in my bunker with my new iPod and await either the onslaught of irate bloggers or the dead silence of a hundred blogs de-linking simultaneously.

But really, I want to know what you think. Am I totally off base or are these issue credible and worthy of discussion?

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

39 Comments

  • Julie
    Julie

    November 12, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    I’d have to say I agree. I tend to read blogs that offer a real-feel about them, anecdotal, I had a bad/good day and here’s why… if I need to research information on a topic, there are ample sites to pursue for that purpose.


  • geena
    geena

    November 12, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    I haven’t read an entire grand rounds in months and months. Too big.
    I skim it and read the ones I’m interested in.

    No de-linking here :-)


  • Dana
    Dana

    November 12, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Being new to the Grand Rounds circuit, I don’t know what GR *used* to be… but I know the blogs I read are the those in which the health care professional offers a case study with details about a specific patient or scenario, or those talking about the practice on a given day, or what have you.

    And yes, I’d agree Grand Rounds is too big.

    Go Kim.


  • jen
    jen

    November 12, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    I pick and choose when reading grand rounds, otherwise i’d be reading for days. I like to read personal stories, what happened in someone’s day, or their opinion on a situation. Another thing I like about grand rounds is the ability to surf the submitted sites, and to see who they link to.


  • Christina
    Christina

    November 12, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    I totally agree with Jen and Julie. I have plenty of health information sites at work and that I get through Medscape nursing. I read medical blogs because I want to hear about the thoughts and emotions of other nurses, and read physicians’ and patients’ stories. I personally don’t want to read about case studies (unless it relates to a specific story about a situation), book promotions or patient education material.


  • B. Perky
    B. Perky

    November 12, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    I used to play with mercury too–didn’t every one?


  • DK
    DK

    November 12, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    I have been reading GR almost since it began. It was through GR that I got a peek into the day-to-day world of healthcare before I started nursing school.

    I still read Grand Rounds. I just don’t look forward to it like I used to. Sometimes I forget and that’s ok.

    Here’s my thoughts on the matter of GR these days.
    1) It’s too long. GR is supposed to be the BEST of medical blogging, not everything that every blogger wants to submit.

    2) Don’t let your theme obscure the posts. Sometimes the host doesn’t tell you about the post itself, but rather, they come up with a “cute” blurb that may or may not be representative of the post’s content. Theme’s are great, but the posts are why we read.

    3) Let’s not dumb it down. I agree Kim that some of the posts look like they should be in the health and fitness section of the local news rather than GR. GR is a carnival of medbloggers for medbloggers.

    Anyway, GR is a great way for both bloggers and non-bloggers to find blogs they want to read. It’s also a great place to read bits and pieces by others you may not read on a regular basis.

    BTW: What does Nick think about this?


  • Dr. A
    Dr. A

    November 12, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    I’m going to be watching this discussion very carefully. Why? Because, I’m a future GR host! Isn’t that special?


  • nurse m
    nurse m

    November 13, 2006 at 12:21 am

    I think you are right on, Kim. I am pretty new to the blogosphere and in my short experience with grand rounds I would have to say it is way too long. I don’t have hours and hours to sit in front of the computer so I pick and choose rather than taking it all in. Who am I to judge.. I haven’t submitted nor hosted GR.


  • travelingdoc
    travelingdoc

    November 13, 2006 at 2:38 am

    Kim- You’re on gal, right on the money and said it well to boot. Giving permission to those who host to edit what they want to include would be a big start. Maybe there should be a limit of 25 or 30 that is about my limit for reading and probably way over what most hosts want to provide. Thanks for this.


  • Rita Schwab
    Rita Schwab

    November 13, 2006 at 3:33 am

    Having also hosted twice, I have to say that it was much tougher to get excited about the quality of the writing the second time around.

    All of the posts I included (and it was nearly everything submitted) had merit, and most of them were well written.

    What the majority lacked, and what I read Grand Rounds for, is heart. I want to develop greater understanding of the humanity of medicine.

    I would support a maximum number of allowable posts – no more than 30. It gives the host a bit of leverage for picking and choosing. As it is everyone expects to be included, and as host, you do hate to disappoint anyone.

    If it’s truly “the best of the medical blogosphere” let’s set the bar a bit higher.

    My 2 cents.


  • Shane
    Shane

    November 13, 2006 at 6:13 am

    I’m not a medical person, and I don’t even play one on TV, but I like the idea of a set limit as Rita mentioned. That gives the host both a fixed guide as to how long it should be and also gives them an easy out when they have to choose which ones to omit. Those who don’t make the cut can always submit next time, right?


  • PixelRN
    PixelRN

    November 13, 2006 at 6:21 am

    Great post Kim! This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I stopped reading and posting to GR on a regular basis a long time ago because of the diminishing quality and increasing quantity of posts.

    Things I would like to see more of on GR: More stories, more literary posts. I like the multidisciplinary approach – I enjoy the perspective of the MD, the patient, the pharmacist, the pastoral care representative – Reading these always brings a fresh approach to my own practice.

    Things I would like to see less of: Themes (yes, some are clever but overall they are too cutesy – they take away from the posts, themselves). And less posts! I would skim it down to no more than 20. That would in theory ensure more quality.


  • oncRN
    oncRN

    November 13, 2006 at 7:47 am

    Kim, first let me say that this post has all the elements…well written, brave, and something to say. Way to go! I feel grand rounds should be edited. And sure, it’s no fun to be left out but I don’t think a professional medical forum should hold ‘don’t want to hurt feelings’ as a criterium.

    I thinks themes need to be handled delicately…some people get so wrapped up in their theme, that the content almost becomes secondary.

    I truly feel that if grand rounds is to serve an informative, educational, professional purpose then it needs to be edited. It will take a bold host to institute that at this point, but I hope someone steps us.


  • TheTundraPA
    TheTundraPA

    November 13, 2006 at 8:19 am

    HEAR HEAR, KIM!! Good for you for saying what has needed to be said. I agree completely. Too many posts and too little quality. GR is not the place for “marketing” flavored writing. It is not the place for fitness and nutrition infomercials. Grand Round is (or should be, and used to be) about the heart of health care. The core, the juice, the reasons we do it, the ways we are enriched by it. GR serves us all best when it truly is an icon of quality and not a wastebasket repository of everything anyone wants to toss in.


  • Susan
    Susan

    November 13, 2006 at 8:40 am

    I agree with you on all points, Kim — and by the way, tomorrow’s host is definitely editing: he asked for TWO revisions of my submission! Don’t ask me where a medical student finds the time to do this, but it’s very impressive!

    Anyway, yes: cut down on theme-ism, select for quality (even if people’s feelings get hurt, that also means that getting in actually means something), and put an upper limit on the number of posts.

    That last item will make things much easier for hosts, and make it easier to find people willing to host. I’ve thought about hosting during the summer sometime when I’m not teaching, but I’m not going to do it if I have to juggle 50 posts.


  • pieces of mind
    pieces of mind

    November 13, 2006 at 10:41 am

    Being neither a health care professional nor a contributor to GR, I read them each week as an interested lurker. So take my opinion FWIW.

    I think less is more. And there’s nothing wrong with setting standards – it inspires everyone to try harder. Twenty to 25 good, solid entries would make for some great reading and ensure that the best entries truly are noticed, rather than being lost in the crowd. I fear I have missed some of these entries in recent months because it’s just so hard to pick them out when they are one of 40 or 50 links.

    Multidisciplinary approach – definitely yes. Maybe this is one rule too many, but I would like to see this as one of the criteria for selection.

    I kinda enjoy the themes, but I sense it is becoming a little competitive to see who can come up with the most clever or creative theme. When it reaches that point, it’s probably gone overboard.

    Just $.02 from a layperson.


  • pieces of mind
    pieces of mind

    November 13, 2006 at 10:45 am

    P.S. Good grief, that is not my blog that I appear to be linked to! What the…

    I don’t see any edit function here either.

    If you are truly interested, Dr.Anonymous has me linked on his blog.

    Sorry. We now return you to your usual programming.


  • Artemis
    Artemis

    November 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    I have to agree with everyone else regarding your comments — they are absolutely on target! I haven’t made it through an entire GR in many months due to the number of links in each. Thanks for having the courage to write what we’ve all (probably) been thinking anyway.
    A


  • Janet
    Janet

    November 13, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    I agree with everyone else, Kim. GR needs more heart and less fluff. I also think it should be limited to 30 links max. In the short time I’ve been reading it I’ve noticed a change in the number of nurse submissions than are linked. It seems to me that the nurse links have decreased since you started Change of Shift.

    Do you think someone somewhere (Nick?) should post guidelines for submission to GR?


  • Janet
    Janet

    November 13, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    Oops! Sorry for the typo. I meant GR. How about an edit feature for your comments, Kim?


  • Kim
    Kim

    November 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Hi Janet –

    Change of Shift came to mind BECAUSE there were not a lot of nursing posts to Grand Rounds and I thought it might be because some nursing bloggers were intimidated by Grand Rounds.

    I still believe Grand Rounds to be THE premier medical blog carnival and that’s why I think if it veers back on track it will continue to grow. And yes, that means even if I don’t get included every week! I like the challenge of writing UP to a standard. And, as was previously mentioned, what might not meet one host’s standard would be another host’s idea of genius, so if you have a really good post you want to submit, you can try the next week.

    Usually for me, I’m onto something new the next week, so I would submit something different. Then again, if you ARE a nurse or the post is nurse-related there is always CoS. At this juncture, CoS is quite manageable!

    Grand Rounds certainly offers more “visibility” than CoS, but I think CoS is strong because it has a more narrower focus. I have actually turned away blatant sales sites, even though they were run by nurse entrepeneurs!


  • Peggikaye
    Peggikaye

    November 13, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    As a patient who’s occassionally had something on Grand Rounds … I say CHEERS to your post!

    I have been reading Grand Rounds since January of 2005 and have submitted 4 or 5 times.

    I, too, like the more anecdotal posts. The posts that are patient information and educational, I close immediately and don’t read. (in otherwords, they might have gotten my hit, they did not get my readership, and if it was a first time visit, didn’t even get enough of my recognition for me to return visit). I get enough patient information from my doctor’s, nurses, physical therapists and the like as it is. What I don’t get, I can look up … I don’t need it unsolicited. I have email support groups for my specific conditons.

    *disclaimer* I came close to a patient informational post during the awareness month for the disease I deal with. ;)

    I like the idea of a patient rounds … I have some reservations with it though.


  • Dr. A
    Dr. A

    November 13, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    Thanks so much for this great discussion. It really helps me as I prepare to be the GR host next week *gulp*

    If I could be so bold, I’ve put two poll questions having to do with GR on my sidebar – one about GR themes (yes or no) and the your ideal number of GR links each week.

    I’d really appreciate it if you could place a vote and let me know what you’re thinking. Thanks so much!


  • Sid Schwab
    Sid Schwab

    November 13, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Excellent post, Kim; I agree with everything you’ve said. As a relatively recent blogger, I find GR generally good, but as time has passed, like others, I find myself skimming it because of the sheer volume. I think the themes have been very clever and obviously represent a lot of work; and they are the main reason I haven’t made any effort to host. Too daunting. I entirely agree the host should feel free to be selective; I suppose it’d be interesting to see how hosts differ in what they deem worthy. Fact is, for the first few times my stuff has been in GR it’s been because I submitted. For some reason or other, I haven’t been submitting lately, and the last two GR (upcoming included) in which my posts have appeared have been ones in which I got a request to submit. Not sure what that means; at some level, I think it reflects a thought that if the only things that appear are self-submitted, and if all submissions appear, it demeans the concept. And even though I did it at first, I don’t like to toot my own horn.


  • Sarah
    Sarah

    November 13, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Amen! I’ve been reading GR for about a year now. I used to read all of them. But the last few I’ve sort of skimmed and clicked on less than 50%. Although, I have to admit I don’t usually click on the emergiblog link…because I’ve already read it :)

    If everyone got accepted for everything there would be no need to rise to a challenge, in other words, if it’s not good reading than the author should do something about it.

    It seems to me that the last months of GR the submissions were more of a “let me just get something on there” rather than “is this good enough for GR”.

    Somebody needs to raise the par.


  • Hannah
    Hannah

    November 13, 2006 at 9:48 pm

    Kim, I heartily agree; your points are well laid out and I like your suggestions. I have been too intimidated to offer to host GR–the number of submissions scared me into hosting Pediatric GR as an alternative. School has ramped up so that I must pick and choose the posts in GR that I read. I ALWAYS read Emergiblog if I must choose a few only! ;)

    Hh


  • Grand Rounds 0308 « the rumors were true
    Grand Rounds 0308 « the rumors were true

    November 14, 2006 at 12:12 am

    [...] A point of disclosure: Kim has written a provocative piece about how a famous historian should edit Grand Rounds for quality and content and it has informed my every decision. I have decided to change the title to Two Bloggers, Two Voices, One Opinion. On second thought — she’s a witch and we should burn her! [everything in italics will have sound in a separate window] [...]


  • Cathy
    Cathy

    November 14, 2006 at 12:44 am

    Kim, I haven’t read all the comments, so if I’am repeating someone, I’m sorry.

    I think that Nick should give us (blogging community in general) an idea of exactly what Grand Rounds is supposed to be, and what it should represent. Just exactly who is the targeted audience? Is Grand Rounds written for the medical professionals, or for patients, and the public in general? Who are these Drs. submitting posts for?

    When I read it, I can’t tell if it is a rounds of Medical professionals exchanging stories for each others benefit, or if they want to give the public more of a view of what being a medical professional is really like?

    What I have seen and read on various blogs, it seems the Docs (some of them) want Grand Rounds to be written by them and for them and all others …NOT INVITED! But, I have also read where Nick has said he wants them written in Laypersons terms, so that patients and the general public can read and benefit from the information. He has even allowed, atleast one patient, to host Grand Rounds. Even though there was some flaming going on, at atleast one physician’s blog, following her hosting. I thought she was treated very unfairly by the medical community when she hosted.

    I’m not a medical anything, but I have read Grand Rounds since the very beginning. I remember when it was mainly Kevin md, Grunt doc, Galen and Rangle MD…That was about it at the time.

    I rarely read them anymore, for the reasons you just mention, they are to long..There is a whole weeks worth of reading there.

    I am hearing you say (If I’m wrong then just tell me) that you don’t think patients should submit to Grand Rounds, but instead, should have their own rounds. I think that lays with who the audience is suppossed to be? Again, is this a rounds to benefit Doctors, nurses and the medical community or one for the general public?

    Glenn Reynolds can absolutely play a role in getting people to your site. Is he thanked when he mentions GRs, or was that just taken for granted? Maybe that’s why he doesn’t mention them anymore?

    Anyway, Nick needs to lay out some rules…

    Posting this was a really good idea Kim.


  • Nick
    Nick

    November 14, 2006 at 4:23 am

    Kim, I’m following this thread with great interest. Dr. Anonymous is also starting a conversation about what readers are looking for in Grand Rounds. And, of course, this week’s host at RumorsWereTrue.com seeks the Holy Grail of Grand Rounds.

    Some quick notes:

    - Instapundit is, in fact, linking to Grand Rounds. Not as consistently as in the early days, perhaps, but certainly in the last few weeks.

    - Having hosts act as editors is an excellent idea, one I encourage, but it is something not every host is comfortable with… and some feel strongly that everything should be included. (Back in January, when some hosts were receving 50,60,70 submissions, you argued for all-inclusiveness at California Medicine Man).

    - Some of my original thoughts on what make for a good submission to Grand Rounds are posted on my site (along the right side). I suggested writing for an educated layperson as a way of leveling the playing field between disciplines and opening ourselves to a wider group of readers. If this has been misinterpreted as an opportunity to submit patient-pamphlet style “causes of low back pain” posts, well, that’s regrettable, and I will clarify the guidelines I send to hosts.

    - I really like your “digest post” idea for the mini-medical blogging communities. While they’re not irrelevant corportate sites, they’re not exactly hurting for publicity, either. A good compromise.

    - The hosts are, as always, the backbone of Grand Rounds — they organize, they work hard making the links, and they throw in the creative flair that makes reading Grand Rounds so worthwhile. Even with all the submissions these days, the hosts are doing spectacular jobs. They deserve a lot of praise.


  • Kim
    Kim

    November 14, 2006 at 8:00 am

    Hi Nick!

    Hey, it’s a woman’s perogative to change her mind : D

    Actually, that is how I felt in January!

    Back then I said to leave it up to the reader to decide the wheat from the chaff. Since then I’ve hosted two Grand Rounds and while both were huge, the tone of the posts have changed in the interim.

    Perhaps it reflects a change in the blogosphere itself and the medical blogsophere specifically.

    To be honest, there was no “chaff” in the entries on my week. I can find something interesting in everyone’s posting. I’m just not sure that it was worth all the work to linking to a three paragraph neck-stretch inservice (x8,if you know what I mean)

    But…there is something missing; something has changed. Maybe it’s an attitude a difference in what is being submitted. Maybe it’s intangible.

    Either way, the discussion is interesting, to say the least. I think it’s been simmering under the surface for awhile.

    And I reserve my right to change my mind next November! LOL! : D Especially if I don’t make any cuts in the next 52 weeks…..


  • difficultpt
    difficultpt

    November 14, 2006 at 9:02 am

    Kim–I totally agree with everything you have said. In fact, I have stopped reading GR because it is so large now, and I don’t feel like I gain anything from it anymore. One thing I would add (after having my letter published in Medscape in favor of Grand Rounds and medblogging) is that I’m hoping the GR hosts have all been verified by Nick as not being fakes (ie NakedTomato). The NT incidence has really made me doubt medbloggers who claim to be doctors while posting anonymously.


  • Fat Doctor
    Fat Doctor

    November 14, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    Kim, I heart you. Heart you. Heart you. Muchly. I agree with much of what you say. I disagree that there need to be more carnivals. I think one nursing and one medical are plenty. I just think the editing needs to be sharper. And sometimes the creativity gets in the way – I can’t figure out before clicking on the link if it is one I’d like to read.


  • topher
    topher

    November 14, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    Thanks Kim (again) for writing this. There have been over 1000 visits to the Grail Rounds today and I think that is due in no small part to the opening buzz that your article created. You’ve gotten people moving and they’re voting with their browsers. Dr Anonymous has already posted his standards for next week’s GR and it looks like a sea change. How this all plays out in the next few weeks is going to be very interesting. Thanks for being the lightening rod, topher.


  • That Girl
    That Girl

    November 15, 2006 at 3:33 am

    You rock, Kim. Ive been reading GR since almost the beginning. I love articles that are interesting – anecdotal, about a “learning experience”, regarding a controversial topic, etc.

    But I can certainly do without a lot of the stuff that has crept in – an article so technical it would take me hours to figure out its meaning, regurgitations of what constitutes healthy eating, excercising. What I want (whether written by nurse, doctor or patient) is something entertaining that maybe teaches me a thing a two or something that makes me consider or think.

    Since you asked :)


  • Grand Rounds, edited. « the rumors were true
    Grand Rounds, edited. « the rumors were true

    November 16, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    [...] This last week I received over 60 submissions for Grand Rounds and included 26. This decision came after sharing some Carl Jungian vibes with Kim at Emergiblog and receiving the blessing of Nick Genes of Blogborygmi. Kim has since received a great deal of attention for her critique of the swelling Grand Rounds. According to the comments, the idea’s a hit and things may change. Next week’s host, Dr. Anonymous, has already thrown down the gauntlet: This may be my last time hosting Grand Rounds, and I may get a lot of flack (and all my future submissions may be rejected). But, hey, I’m the editor and I’m deciding what’s in and what’s out this week. Being included in Grand Rounds is not an entitlement; it’s not a right; it’s a privilege. [...]


  • [...] Anonymous Rounds (That are Grand) By Rob  Friend of the blog (FOTB) Dr. Anonymous has posted the latest edition of Grand Rounds (In public, I might add).  Over the past week he has been chronicling the process of putting together a GR.  Kim at Emergiblog helped a lot by posting some thoughts from an ol’ pro regarding the do’s and don’ts of hosting a GR.  Personally, I don’t have the attention span to go through all of the submissions (I would need a large cup of double-Ratalin latte). [...]


  • [...] As far as Grand Rounds itself do check out Kim at Emergiblog’s discussion of what is the purpose of GR and should all submissions be accepted.  A very hot topic.  For me it’s interesting that recent editors are stressing the literary side of medical stories exclusively.  I had one tell me my cutting edge post did not have a “story” besides the facts.  These literary pieces are fantastic but to ignore factually and scientific posts or those directly targeted to a medical audience weakens the concept of the best of the medical blogosphere.    « The Power of Genetics and IVF Embryos- and the Controversy |   [...]


  • [...] In the spirit Grand Rounds (a weekly rotating carnival of the best of the medical blogosphere), daily/weekly search marketing round ups and the Ground Round (a cheesy restaurant chain primarily located on the East Coast where townies go to watch “the game”), I am proud to announce the launch of my weekly Ground Round Up. [...]


About Me

My name is Kim, and I'm a nurse in the San Francisco Bay area. I've been a nurse for 33 years; I graduated in 1978 with my ADN. My experience is predominately Emergency and Critical Care, and I have also worked in Psychiatry and Pediatrics. I made the decision to be a nurse back in 1966 at the age of nine...

Continue reading »

Find Me On...
Twitter     Technorati

Subscribe to Emergiblog
Office of the National Nurse

Zippy Was Here


Healthcare Blogger Code of Ethics

  • Perspective
  • Confidentiality
  • Disclosure
  • Reliability
  • Courtesy

medbloggercode.com

I Support the Public Library of Science

Dr. Val
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson Health Channel
Webicina
Nursing and Web 2.0



Health blogs

Medicine Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Alltop. Seriously?! I got in?

Health Blogs - Blog Rankings