<p>How realistic is this show? By that I mean does that kind of stuff really happen in hospitals, I am sure there is a large element of Drama being that it is a major network television show, but throw that aside for a minute. Are House and a career as a diagnostician accurately portrayed?</p>
<p>It seems like a really interesting job that I would be decent at (deductive reasoning) </p>
<p>the diseases and the treatements that they show are what interest me in the medical career, I like puzzles</p>
<p>too bad not everyone of my patcients would be some basket case..</p>
<p>Grey's anatomy's medical scenes and dialogue are very accurate. However, as I'm quick to point out to many, the main draw of the show is not the medicine but the relationships and the antics.</p>
<p>We talk a lot about it in Allied Health class, so probably lots of it is accurate. However, I'm sure a doctor in real life wouldn't spend as much time specifically on just one patient, and if a doctor acted like House in real life he'd probably be kicked out of the hospital.</p>
<p>I've been watchin' House since it first came out and its a pretty good show; however, from what I've heard, while most of the medical situations that occur are all possible, they are fairly improbable....day to day medicine is usually much more mundane</p>
<p>OMG!!! I love that show!!! It is way better than Grey's Anatomy, although I do admit Grey has a better looking cast.</p>
<p>I'm still in high school and I learned so much watching House. Hugh Laurie is a great actor and has a great memory memorizing all those diagnoses.</p>
<p>yes, House is my favorite show as of now. I can really relate to his character, in fact give me another 30 years and I will audition if the show is till around and Laurie wants to quit. </p>
<p>I have tailed a real MD, but it was in the boring local hospital which has no budget and bad equipment, House works at the so called "Princeton teaching hospital"</p>
<p>reverting to my original question though, are the medical terms and procedures used correctly/accurately?</p>
<p>From what I can tell a lot of the medical info is correct - they do mess up sometimes though (leave off protective clothing so the actors "look better") (allowed the patient with suspected TB to rome the hospital...uh, no that would expose everyone in the hospital.)</p>
<p>They also do a lot of stuff that is totally illegal (breaking and entering on a regular basis, for one). </p>
<p>Terms and procedures are for the most part used rightly, but the diseases are not realistic. Acquisition, probability, and symptoms are all often wildly off-base.</p>
<p>This book is not an advocacy of the show's accuracy. In fact, it asks:
[quote]
...how much of the medical detail is real and how much is fabricated?
<p>Real hospitals a no where near as entertaining/filled with action, even an Ivy better than Princeton hospital (think Y). Plus they always name nearly the same diseases as a possiblity when they are trying to make a diagnosis and those diseases are rare. Although some may try to deny it, many doctors are similar to House, although they cant go nearly as far as he does. But they still are just as miserable. </p>
<p>As far as airborne diseases, there are special precautions for those types of patients. Certain rooms have special ventilation systems and the rooms are pressurized in a certain way as not to let other people/patients get infected. To enter these rooms you usually need a gown and mask, at least.</p>
<p>Somewhere I was reading that diagnosing diseases is done so poorly in this country that it is an embarassment. Basically the system does not provide incentives for correct diagnoses.</p>
<p>Okay, so watching an episode for the first time...and this show is all about hunting "zebras". This parasite episode is so ridiculously out there that I'm willing to dismiss the entire series as unrealistic. Zebras are interesting cases (like the case I read about in which toad venom toxicity mimicked digoxin poisoning), but are not, for the most part, worth taking the time to consider.</p>
<p>Wherever you read about diagnosing diseases is done poorly is only partial. There is a deficiency in making clinical diagnoses without the use of lab tests/imaging/procedure tests. The system does not pay for much if you are able to just look at someone and say "you have lupus!" or whatever. Plus, most patients want some sort of lab run a lot of times.</p>
<p>Any academic hospital is going to have patients that are far more ill than what 99% of community hospitals will see. The combination of being Level I trauma centers, taking patients regardless of ability to pay, and clinical reasearch that draws patients from all over a region when other hospitals have failed means that they are a very skewed representation of what most doctors ever see in practice (one of the biggest criticisms of the medical education system in this country). This is not gong to be dependent on the "ranking" of a medical center simply from the fact that hospital choices are mostly based on location. Only the extremely, extremely, extremely rare patients will travel to other centers - and in that case usually in the search for a specific expert in that illness. One that could be anywhere regardless of rank/prestige.</p>