How to choose a mentor

Mentors will play important roles in the careers of most successful scientists. Mentors are trusted advisors that give constructive criticism and provide information in many areas of a scientific life. Mentors will likely change throughout your career as your position changes and thus the areas of advice needed changes. Despite the fact that you gain new mentors, the relationships with the old mentors likely will continue and often grow into strong friendships. The American Physiological Society is a member of MentorNet, which is an award-winning, free, one-on-one electronic mentoring program for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career scientists who are APS members. Mentees and mentors are matched based on their responses to several questionnaires regarding research interests, mentoring needs, time needed, etc. Once assigned, mentors and mentees are allowed to approve their matches, and once done, contact information is given to each pair. A new mentor can be assigned every eight months. These electronic mentoring relationships are especially helpful if you are not comfortable discussing certain things with your thesis or postdoctoral advisor. APS encourages all members to participate either as a mentee or mentor in this valuable program. To comment on this article, go to http://www.the-aps.org/careers/ careers 1/mentor/mentoring.htm.     

Recruiting new principals in general practice.

New principals in general practice who were appointed from 1981 to 1983 by two family practitioner committees, one in an inner city and one in a combination of an inner city and suburban area, were surveyed to find out if they were making improvements to primary medical care in their new practices. Most were not. The highly trained, motivated, young doctors on the whole had joined group practices and practices in health centres, where facilities tended to be good. Older doctors, who may not be as concerned with change, had joined smaller practices, in which it was difficult to make changes owing to, for example, the type of premises and costs.     

How to achieve better outcome in treatment of asthma in general practice.

The symptoms of many asthmatic patients are poorly controlled, and there are several reasons why this may be so. Doctors fail to find out about symptoms that asthmatic patients are experiencing. Doctors wrongly assume that regular use of bronchodilators in small doses is satisfactory treatment for asthma and that taking high doses of bronchodilator in an asthma attack may be dangerous. Doctors think that inhaled steroids may be dangerous and are reluctant to use them in effective doses. Doctors do not check that patients can use their inhalers properly and do not make enough use of large volume spacers, the best available method for giving inhaled asthma treatment. Doctors undermine patients'' confidence in advice on treatment by failing to ensure that consistent advice is given and often make the management of asthma more troublesome for the patient than the symptoms of asthma.     

Bedside haematology: new facility in general practice.

A technique has been developed for performing rapid white cell counts and differential white cell counts at the bedside which uses a pocket McArthur microscope and a development of Field''s staining technique. A fixed volume thick film technique is used for the total white cell count that uses the minimum of equipment, all of which is disposable. In a study of samples from 88 patients using the thick film technique and standard laboratory techniques the thick film counts fell within 1.1 X 10(9)/1 (mean) of the standard laboratory count. This compares with a value of 1.0 X 10(9)/1 (mean) for within laboratory variability, using different electronic counters on the same specimen.     

Entry to general practice training.

Since 1979 general practitioner trainees in the North West Region of England have been assessed on knowledge and ability by several tests, including the multiple choice test. Trainers in the region require a score in the MCQ of 45% before taking a trainee into the practice. More British graduates have achieved this score than overseas graduates. The difference was statistically significant. Only applicants who show adequate factual recall should be appointed as trainees.     

Contribution of Gardnerella vaginalis to vaginitis in a general practice.

In a study of 154 adult women who presented to their general practitioner with vaginal symptoms 30 (20%) had Gardnerella vaginalis on its own and 51 (33%) had G vaginalis in combination with anaerobes or known pathogens. Thirty one (20%) patients were culture negative. Those who were culture negative had fewer symptoms and signs of vaginitis than those with G vaginalis alone or G vaginalis plus anaerobes. Those with known pathogens had more symptoms and signs than those with G vaginalis alone or G vaginalis plus anaerobes. Those with known pathogens plus G vaginalis had the most severe signs and symptoms of vaginitis. It is concluded that G vaginalis can cause vaginitis on its own, and it makes vaginitis worse when present with other organisms. G vaginalis was also found in 30 (21%) of the 138 control patients who, although they presented "asymptomatically," had worse signs than control patients without G vaginalis. It seems that G vaginalis can occur in a spectrum ranging from the uncomplaining patient to those with severe vaginitis.     

Adverse reactions to drugs in general practice.

Of 817 patients in a general-practice survey of adverse reactions to drugs, 41% were thought to have "certainly" or "probably" had a reaction to the drug prescribed. Adverse effects on the gastrointestinal and central nervous systems were the most frequently reported, and 90% of reactions had occurred by the fourth day of treatment. More patients given drugs acting on the central nervous system and antihistamines reported reactions than those in other categories. A higher incidence of adverse drug effects is shown in this general-practice survey than in other, mainly hospital-based, surveys. Further intensive surveillance for adverse effects of drugs is recommended to provide additional information on the burden of drug-induced disease in the community.