Any good physical exam books out there?

[kris]

I was wondering if you guys have a physical exam book you're really happy with. We're using the Mosby's Physical Examination Handbook, 2ed. It's pretty decent as far as the exams go, and the real beauty of it is that it fits in your white coat (which my preceptor lets me ditch! Yea!)

I'm unhappy with the sample documentation presented in my book. I was wondering if you guys have run across a book that's particularly good for learning documentation.

Thanks,
--kris

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ckent]

we use bates, I used to like it, I think that Bates is the standard for most physicians. I used to like it, but right now I am somewhat frustrated with it, mainly because it expects you to already know a lot of anatomy and pathophysiology when reading it (eg it doesn't explain why liver disease can give you clubbing of the fingers). maybe I will go back to liking it when I learn more.

 

[PimplePopperMD]

DeGowen is fantastic. It explains what one might expect in their differential diagnosis with a particular physical finding, and will go into a mild amount of pathophysiology to explain. One of the attendings said that "every attending pimps primarily from this book".

have a look. two thumbs up. way up!

 

[kris]

Thanks for the suggestions. Bates does seem to be a standard, doesn't it? I've never heard of the DeGowen book. I'll look into it!

If anyone else has suggestions, especially for learning documentation (I'm trying to learn to write up full H&Ps), post those great suggestions here!

I love this place.
--kris

 

[newbie_guy]

In Physical Examination, we used both Bates and Degowin but Bates was our standard textbook.

Bates was good coz it is easy to read, has lots of pictures and diagrams with it and its very organized in a way coz it starts with a review of anatomy before it starts with the physical exam proper. It has clical correlation also, but it doesn't touch on those correlates that much. It just gives you that if you have like this sign or systom, you might have this disease or condition.

Our school has this original Bates videotapes for every system and we watch it after the lecture about that system was given. It was helpful coz it demonstrates how really to perform a P.E. and how to do it right. It gives you a picture on how a basic P.E. is done by a practicing physician. So that is why, I guess, Bates is considered as the standard.

DeGowin, on the other hand, I find it more detailed. Though its smaller than Bates, it definitely contains more! Its very handy and easy to read too. When I had P.E. I read it by my bed before I sleep! It gives what Bates lack, the differential diagnosis and all the clinical presentation of the case. Though it doesn't have pictures per se,(only diagrams) the description of the test or exam you need to perform is graphic and easily understandable.

So, I guess I would say that you can read Bates if you want to know the technique and supplement with Degowin if you want to get deeper on what you got from the P.E.

Hope that helps! God bless!

 

[mcwmark]

I'd say Bates is the easiest to read, and good if you're learning it for the first time. However, it seems too "simple" after you're skills have advanced a bit, in terms of understanding why things happen. For that, the Mosby book is a bit more detailed (not by much). Of course, the other book mentioned above is great, but probably not for the newbie!

 

[BoonDoc]

We use bates and lippincots. They complement each other. Where lippincots is a little elementary, it does have great illustrations.

 

[LR6SO4]

Schwartz Textbook of Physical Diagnosis is real similar to Bates but also has documentation. It shows how to do an exam on a certain part with photos and diagrams and then at the end of the chapter gives example write ups for normal and pathological conditions. Here's one example from the normal eye write up:

Visual acuity is OD 20/20 and OS 20/30 according to the standard Snellen chart. The visual fields by confrontation are normal. Examination of the external structures of the eyes is normal. The pupils are equal, round, and reactive to light and to accommodation. The extraocular movements are normal. On ophthalmoscopic examination, the disc margins are sharp. An normal cup-to-disc ratio is present. The vasculature is normal.

 

[kris]

LR6SO4,
That's great if that book has that kind of sample documentation for all the standard exams! I figure I'll pick up the shorthand for it along the way (PERRLA, etc.). Right now I just use lots of null signs in front of things, but I'm sure I still don't have the standard shorthand down pat. I guess it'll just come with time.

It's too bad there's not a book out there that explains the shorthand too!

Thanks for all the replies.
--kris

 

[gwjib04]

Adding to an old thread since it comes up in Google first.

JAMA did a series of articles called the Rational Clinical Exam which is all about the evidence-based physical exam. They walks through every exam and explains when it is supported and when it is not useful. I found it really concise and easy to read and a great supplement to the Bates videos.

They are available in a bound form too which is easier than looking at each one through the web but if you are looking for one exam in particular then you can just go through the JAMA site.