Critical-Care Books

I used this book as a student during my emergency rotation and to study for exams. I've also used it as a vet - it's a great way to review material. it's fun! the questions are accompanied by color pictures (though some are dificult to interpret due to their smallish size), and the answers are comprehensive. I highly reccomend this book to final year vet students!

This book is wonderful for those of you who are either getting started in the Veterinary field or if you have been in it for a while but are going to make the change to Emergency/Critical Care. I love it.

Highly recommendable introduction to sociology of medecine, which tries to position itself as an independent discipline and claims that medical knowledge is never disinterested. Describes the evolution from the 'bed side' medicine, with a privileged relationship between a physician and a patient, over the 'hospital medicine' which is characterized by a shift in the face-to-face relationship towards a fractioning of the patient's body in 'specialized topics'of health care, whereby the interest in the patient as a 'whole person' is replaced by studies of specific lesions and malfunctions. From then on the patient is supposed to 'endure and wait'. The 'laboratory medicine' represents the ultimate stage, where the patient becomes a material thing to be analysed. The description of the 'sick role' and 'physician role' are particularly interesting. The book also contains references to main-stream approaches in the sociology of the seventies that have had a crucial role in the sociology of health and medecine, which makes the book accessible even to those who lack a thorough background in sociology. It also provides a clear overview of the feminist theories (liberal, radical, postmodern, materialist). The book goes on with a research on economic inequality and health, with sometimes surprising conclusions! The only criticism here is that the statistical material refers to Great Britain for the most. Given GB's typical health care system, the results are not very useful for extrapolations to other European Countries or the US. The next chapter on gender inequalities and health status, with a focus on the relationship between health status and social roles, also features some surprising (read: interesting) conclusions! A further link is made from 'race', ethnicity, social class to illness and health. The last part of the book focusses on the experience of illness and health care in the 1990's and beyond. Overall, it's surely worthwhile reading as one of the few accessible works that challenges the 'establishment of the medical profession' in it's claim to be an 'objective, colourfree and fair' discipline.

I just recently took the ccrn exam and had every book out there. As books go, i liked this one the best. The content is laid out in outline form and it has alot of practice questions in the back. To me, this is more helpful than anything else. (For example another book that had crossword puzzles and word searches- who has time for that??)

I have found this text to be complete yet concise. If you are caring for patients in the SICU you can find much use for the information in this reference. It provides details when necessary, but spares you the review of the more basic concepts that you use daily and which tend to bog down other books. This lends portability to this book and I find it a very useful addition to my library.

Good review book. If you're a resident and not planning on going into ER, but want to do well, this or the "just the facts" book are great.

This is a clear and concise book that is well organized. It is appropriate for undergraduate students and practicing hospice nurses. A good resource.

This book is the only one I have read that covers the continuum of trauma care from immediate care in the emergency room, through ITU and acute ward care to rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. The main focus of the book is the patient in the acute setting, in the weeks or months following injury. Physiological and psycological aspects of care are given attention and the book includes many case studies and reflections from members of the multidisciplinary team as well as former patients. The book emphasises the importance of multiprofessional teamwork with chapters on organisational issues and education as well as the clinical aspects of care. The causes of trauma are discussed for different age groups and the book includes a chapter outlining an accident prevention programme for schools. The section on clinical care has chapters on subjects such as respiratory function, wound care, nutrition, elimination, moving and handling rather than discussing care according to types of injury. This book is written by health professionals working in a British Trauma Unit so it is probably of more relevance to those working in a similar system, however the subject matter covered, case studies and reflections make it relevant to a wider audience.

This is a great review for those who were out of touch in special procedures. I know I am. The information just became second nature to me the anatomy and pathology shown in these pages are good review.

This book is more about his self interests and promoting his career then about healthcare. He believes that our answer for healthcare is to insert a "unbiased" politically appointed board of doctors and economists between you and your doctor. There are already standards of care and government published guidelines. Having a new government entity publishing another set is redundant and not needed. Also, standards of care are to ensure that the lowest level of care is given not the highest. So with the new board they will reduce care for you to the lowest level necessary in order to save money and that everyone is the same. Those with money or good health insurance will lose benefits because he wants to punish doctors for providing above the standard level of care. He views this as wasteful and not needed.

There are numerous issues that affect the level and quality of heathcare that is given in America. His book only offers a short simplistic answer for how he wants government to grow, not for how to provide quality healthcare to American citizens.

Tom Daschle's proposed 'Federal Health Board' would infuse paternalism into our current cost-inefficient health-care system. It stops short of regulation. Daschle is very mindful of the Clinton administration's failed attempt at reform in the '90s. He does not want to fail again. He wants to craft reform that has a chance of passage in Congress. In closing, on page 205, he says, "I have strong views on what an 'ideal' system would look like. But I'm not willing to sacrifice worthy improvements on the altar of perfection."

This is a very readable book. Some chapters are only *three* pages long.

Tom Daschle gives a good review of where health care reform legislation has failed in the past half century and has a very reasoned explanation for why the US needs the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Board for 21st century health care. Recommended for all those interested in the future of the US health care system

The subtitle of this book should be "How we can achieve complete federal control of health care while we fool voters into not realizing what we're doing."

Daschle spends the first three quarters of the book trying to build the case for total health care reform - it didn't take me long before I was skimming and thinking "alright, alright, I get it, so what do you want to do about it?" He finally makes it to his destination and his plans are interesting, especially since we look likely to follow them soon. However, there is one glaring flaw - I kept wondering, "how does he plan to pay for this?" and the answer is, he doesn't. He just does some hand waving, says it will all be made up in "greater efficiencies" or something and figures it will all work out. Once you take out the need to pay for something, I can probably come up with a hundred plans as good or better than this one.

Among westernized nations, America is an anomaly. We do not guarantee health care for our citizens. And we've convinced ourselves that the 'every person fend for themselves' approach is more than adequate.

But incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle explains why America cannot continue pulling the wool over its eyes.

In this book, the former Senator convincingly argues that we need fundamental health care reform which provides all people with the quality of health care currently given to federal employees.

Wait; you're probably asking yourself, wasn't health care reform previously attempted? Yes, but since the early 1990's, the numbers of the uninsured have merely skyrocketed. The need for health care reform has not at all gone away.

Against the bankruptcy-inducing realities of people having to pay out of pocket for their necessary and life-saving medical procedures, the 'stressful paperwork' commercials then aired by the American Medical Association look almost comedic. To think having to write on lines of paper once scared the American voter who could now loose their home!

Aware of this and other horror stories, Daschle's plan is very pragmatic. Recognizing the U.S. medical care system as mediocre, he would overhaul Medicaid and open up the federal health insurance group policy to others.

Setting up a Federal Health Board appears to be his attempt to rid the country of the 'pre-existing' clause which hinders current treatments. And the implementation of a medical record would help doctors avoid costly and dangerous medical mistakes on a patient, further improving the quality of American medical care. Eliminating mistakes and their consequences will further lower the insurance rates for everybody, and the consequences of treating anybody's pre-existing condition.

I honestly would have liked to see more of a critique of the role which insurance agencies had played and continue to play in today's mess. The insurance industry itself is the reason why entire groups (such as people with disabilities) formally are prohibited from purchasing affordable and adequate health care even while new medicines and technologies improve our lifespan.

Unless they are federal employees, people with disabilities lack adequate health care because of who we are.

Imagine the outcry if the insurance industry attempted to bar entire categories of people because of ethnicity, gender, or religion. It should not continue because of disability either. Here Daschle misses a prime opportunity to advocate for much-needed reform.