Tag Archive for: Mike Leveridge

Posts

The 5th BJUI Social Media Awards

It’s hard to believe that we have been doing the BJUI Social Media Awards for five years now! I recall vividly our inaugural BJUI Social Media Awards in 2013, as the burgeoning social media community in urology gathered in the back of an Irish Bar in San Diego to celebrate all things social. At that time, many of us had only got to know each other through Twitter, and it was certainly fun going around the room putting faces with twitter handles for the first time. That spirit continues today as the “uro-twitterati” continues to grow, and the BJUI Awards, (or the “Cult” Awards as our Editor-in-Chief likes to call them), remains a fun annual focus for the social-active urology community to meet up in person.

As you may know, we alternate the Awards between the annual congresses of the American Urological Association (AUA) and of the European Association of Urology (EAU). Last year, we descended on Munich, Germany to join the 13,000 or so other delegates attending the EAU Annual Meeting and to enjoy all the wonderful Bavarian hospitality on offer. This year, we set sail for the #AUA17 Annual Congress in Boston, MA, along with over 16,000 delegates from 100 different countries. What a great few days in beautiful Boston and a most welcome return for the AUA to this historic city. Hopefully it will have a regular spot on the calendar, especially with the welcome dumping of Anaheim and Orlando as venues for the Annual Meeting.

Awards

On therefore to the Awards. These took place on Saturday 13th May 2017 in the City Bar of the Westin Waterfront Boston. Over 80 of the most prominent uro-twitterati from all over the world turned up to enjoy the hospitality of the BJUI and to hear who would be recognised in the 2017 BJUI Social Media Awards. We actually had to shut the doors when we reached capacity so apologies to those who couldn’t get in! Individuals and organisations were recognised across 12 categories including the top gong, The BJUI Social Media Award 2017, awarded to an individual, organization, innovation or initiative who has made an outstanding contribution to social media in urology in the preceding year. The 2013 Award was won by the outstanding Urology Match portal, followed in 2014 by Dr Stacy Loeb for her outstanding individual contributions, and in 2015 by the #UroJC twitter-based journal club. Last year’s award went to the #ilooklikeaurologist social media campaign which we continue to promote.

This year our Awards Committee consisted of members of the BJUI Editorial Board – Declan Murphy, Prokar Dasgupta, Matt Bultitude, Stacy Loeb, John Davis, as well as BJUI Managing Editor Scott Millar whose team in London (Max and Clare) drive the content across our social platforms. The Committee reviewed a huge range of materials and activity before reaching their final conclusions.

The full list of winners is as follows:

Most Read [email protected] – “The optimal treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer: the debate rages on”. Dr Chris Wallis, Toronto, Canada

1-1

Most Commented [email protected] – “It’s not about the machine, stupid”. Dr Declan Murphy, Melbourne, Australia

1-2

Most Social Paper – “Novel use of Twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology”. Accepted by Stacy Loeb on behalf of herself and her colleagues.

1-3

Best BJUI Tube Video – “Combined mpMRI Fusion and Systematic Biopsies Predict the Final Tumour Grading after Radical Prostatectomy”. Dr Angela Borkowetz, Dresden, Germany

AUA

Best Urology Conference for Social Media – #USANZ17 – The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Urological Association of Australia & New Zealand (USANZ) 2017. Accepted by Dr Peter Heathcote, Brisbane, Australia. President of USANZ.

1-5

Best Urology App – The EAU Guidelines App. Accepted by Dr Maria Ribal, Barcelona, Spain, on behalf of the EAU.

1-6

Innovation Award – BJUI Urology Ontology Hashtags keywords. Accepted by Dr Matthew Bultitude, London, UK, on behalf of the BJUI.

1-7

#UroJC Award – Dr Brian Stork, Michigan, USA. Accepted by Dr Henry Woo of Brian’s behalf.

UroJC
Most Social Trainee – Dr Chris Wallis, Toronto, Canada

1-9

Best Urology Journal for Social Media –Journal of Urology/Urology Practice. Accepted by Dr Angie Smith, Chapel Hill, USA, on behalf of the AUA Publications Committee.

1-10

Best Urology Organisation – Canadian Urological Association. Accepted by Dr Mike Leveridge, Vice-President of Communications for CUA.

1-11

The BJUI Social Media Award 2017 – The Urology Green List, accepted by Dr Henry Woo, Sydney, Australia.

1-12

All the Award winners (except Dr Brian Stork who had to get home to work), were present to collect their awards themselves. A wonderful spread of socially-active urology folk from all over the world, pictured here with BJUI Editor-in-Chief, Prokar Dasgupta.

1-13

A special thanks to our outstanding BJUI team at BJUI in London, Scott Millar, Max Cobb and Clare Dunne, who manage our social media and website activity as well as the day-to-day running of our busy journal.

See you all in Copenhagen for #EUA18 where we will present the 6th BJUI Social Media Awards ceremony!

 

Declan Murphy

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Associate Editor, BJUI

@declangmurphy

While you slept: bad behaviour and recording in the operating room

CaptureA head-shaking story of operating room unprofessionalism has been making the rounds on news services and social media, as an unsuspecting patient inadvertently recorded audio during his colonoscopy, only to hear his person and personality belittled by the operating room staff while he was anaesthetized. The heat has fallen mostly on one anesthesiologist, but none has escaped rightful scrutiny.

The anesthesiologist of the day quipped to the newly asleep patient “after five minutes of talking to you in pre-op, I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit.” The OR team mocked a rash the patient had noted, alternately joking that it was syphilis or “tuberculosis of the penis”. “As long as it’s not Ebola”, remarked the surgeon. The case went to court and the patient was ultimately awarded $500,000US.

On reading the story and the clearly ghastly banter among the team, no doubt the first response would be along the lines of “they actually said those things?!”. I suspect, however, that more than a few surgeons’ gut reaction might have been “he heard what they were saying about him?!”, followed by squirming in one’s seat and the sudden recollection of a dozen blithe comments in one’s own ORs. This incident opens several proverbial cans of worms that merit some thought.

Clearly, this particular debacle is a no-debate-needed case of unacceptable behaviour, and the solution is simple: don’t do that! We have spent much energy in the past years establishing ground rules for online professionalism, but of course the rules of decorum have always applied in the material world as well. Recording or no recording, there is simply no place for mocking of patients, awake, asleep or in absentia.

As surgeons, and urologists perhaps in particular (with our warrant to investigate and operate on urogenital complaints), this provides a stark reminder about our own behaviour, when the audio isn’t being recorded. Ask yourself if you have openly lamented the challenges of operating within a morbidly obese patient’s pelvis or retroperitoneum, snickered or gasped at the enormity of a hydrocele or penile tumor, or glibly eulogized a torted or cancerous testicle.

A question then becomes, what is acceptable and unacceptable in the operating room? Are all off-topic conversations unacceptable? Given the intensity of surgery and the OR, is there room for joking and banter to decant some stress? My personal thought is that black-and-white dictates and zero-tolerance policies usually (read: usually) only serve to absolve us of having to actually think about issues, and that grey areas exist in most settings. Levity in the OR is no different, but caution and forethought are critical.

The other issue that clearly arises is that of recording within the OR during surgery. There are doubtless advocates of each extreme, from the sanctity of the theatre to full access to video and audio. We have all had patients bring recorders into the clinic room – does the Hawthorne effect improve our behaviour or our care, or does the added scrutiny lead to hedging, indecision or ambiguity on the part of the physician? You can see both sides play out in this post and its comments. Recording in the operating room is on a completely different level than clinic discussions, however. Aside from the content of conversation within the operating room, the complexities and individuality of each procedure and the thought of a second-by-second parsing of technical detail by non-expert patients seems to make this a totally unwieldy proposition. On the other hand, are the assumption of basic ethical standards and a post-op chat enough “data” for a patient to really understand all of the relevant details of their care? What about recording for skill development or assessment? Much has been written here as well.

The patient/plaintiff in this case was clearly subject to a debasement none of us deserves or would wish on ourselves. Reading and hearing this OR team’s contempt for their patient is a graphic reminder of what this behaviour can descend to unchecked, and hopefully a course-correction for surgeons, nurses and anaesthesiologists who hover on or over “the line”. As for its window into the merits of recording, the issue gets no clearer.

 

Mike Leveridge is an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Urology and Oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. @_TheUrologist_

 

 

You are Not Connected to the Internet: Seeking Stable WiFi at the Modern Conference

Urologists the world over have at last settled back into their rhythms after congregating en masse in San Diego, California for the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. While I hadn’t expected to escape balmy Ontario for crisp breezes in Southern California, the setting was an excellent one.

This year’s AUA meeting had all the hallmarks of years past – heaving throngs of AUA-branded-faux-leather-bagged urologists speed-walking between sessions in the enormous SD Convention Centre, bleary-eyed sufferers burning away their respective fogs with espresso in the cavernous Exhibit Hall, and plenary sessions packed to the gills to hear the latest and greatest. One pernicious tradition was unfortunately manifest again, however, in the form of unreliable wireless internet access in the conference hall and ancillary venues.

Modern conferences and conference centres (where (ironically) the latest technologies and scientific advances are presented) seem to have barricaded themselves from the digital world the modern conference-goer inhabits. This may at first seem inconsequential, as the sequestration and forced attention might keep the focus on the presented data. In truth, an entire communication meta-layer, that of the conversations, opinions and dissemination created by social media activity, are needlessly compromised.

As has been stated repeatedly in social media circles, this year’s annual meeting was a bonanza of twitter activity at the #aua13 hashtag, with over 4000 tweets sent from 468 users during the meeting proper. The recent European Association of Urology meeting in Milan was similarly well subscribed, with almost 1800 tweets from 251 users.

It seems universal at urology (and doubtless other disciplines’) meetings that some of the earliest twitter activity centers around the pain of spotty or absent wifi. To wit:

 – from #uro12 (AUA Atlanta):

 

 – from #eau13 (EAU Milan):

 

 – from #aua13 (AUA San Diego):

These are but a few of the dozens of agonized tweets based on weak, spotty or absent wifi, and for each there is doubtless a dozen, fifty, a hundred more people in the same building steaming with the same frustrations. International delegates, loathe to “roam” outside their home data plans, are perhaps the most handicapped. One imagines the conference centre tech team testing their seemingly robust signal in an empty room, devoid of the hundreds or thousands of devices queuing for bandwidth space once the meeting is in full swing. And let’s not forgive the conference-adjacent hotels that host dozens of ancillary meetings, such as the well-attended Society of Urologic Oncology meeting, each year in advance of the AUA proper. Typically there is a total absence of available wifi in these conference halls. In 2013, the mind boggles at this omission (on the part of organizers as well as the hotels).

Certainly the modern conference centre and the modern meeting must see beyond their own walls, and address the modern realities of communication. The reach of social media, and indeed the basic need of busy attendees to connect with their practices, lives and colleagues make this all the more imperative. Relative to all the other logistic feats that underpin a conference, building in extra bandwidth (with redundancy to avoid catastrophe) should be a simple infrastructure and expenditure issue, well within the means of the centre to predict and to deploy.

 A brief set of expectations for the modern conference centre’s wireless internet:

  1. Conference wifi must be available to all who wish to access it, when and where they wish to do so. Hotels are not exempt if they host parts of the meeting. Wifi is no longer a perk or a luxury.
  2. Login should be simple and able to be performed in the native settings of the users’ devices, rather than the agonizing experience of web- or browser-based login.
  3. Requiring repeated logins when re-entering rooms or buildings is excruciating and anathema to the speed of communication and discussion that define social media. One formal login per device per meeting.
  4. The ubiquity of mobile devices may require a building retrofit or construction of stations to facilitate the ability of delegates to charge these devices.

Until these conditions are met, associations, conferences and conference centres will be forced by their own inertia to stifle the full potential of the meetings they host. Here’s hoping that the volume of our discontent is heard by organizers, and suitable guarantees are established and met as conditions of hosting our meetings.

Mike Leveridge is an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Urology and Oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. @_theurologist_

 

Comments on this blog are now closed.

 

© 2019 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.