2011-2012 Educational Review Manual in Urology New!
The Annual Review Course was established to provide the most up-to-date information reviewing the practice of urology on an annual basis. The course was originally designed to provide a thorough review of pertinent urologic information for Chief Residents who were about to take their written urology Board Examination. Since that time, the course has grown to include a comprehensive review for those urologists about to sit for their recertification examination and also for those practicing urologists who wanted a general review in the field.
Because this course has become one of the most popular educational offerings of the AUA, the faculty members along with the course directors, Drs. Allen Morey and Daniel Shoskes have written the AUA Educational Review Manual in Urology as an additional study aid to those preparing for the American Board of Urology examinations. This textbook can also be used for general review within the field of urology. This is the third edition of the Review Manual, now with updated basic science and clinical information for all Urologists. There is no CME credit offered.
This publication is supported by an educational grant from Watson Pharmaceuticals.
2011 Annual Review Course Syllabus
New!
This comprehensive, four-volume set includes the course handouts from the 2011 Annual Review Course. Led by 27 of the best in urologic academia, the AUA's popular Annual Review Course is an intense four-day course covering the subjects tested by the ABU. Volume I covers Anatomy and Embryology, Pediatric Urology, and Urolithiasis; Volume II covers Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Bladder Stone Disease, Renal Medicine, Renal and Ureteral Tumors, Urologic Trauma, Radiology Practice Test, ABU Process, Neurourology and Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction, Urinary Tract Infection, and Adrenal; Volume III covers Laparoscopy, Urolithiasis, Prostate Cancer, Testicular Tumors, Bladder Cancer, Pathology Practice Test, Penile and Urethral Cancer, and Urologic Trauma; and Volume IV includes Infection and Inflammation, Infertility, and Erectile Dysfunction.
Caring for Patients From Different Cultures
Geri-Ann Galanti
Third Edition
What happens when a Cherokee patient summons a medicine man to the hospital, or when an Anglo nurse refuses to take orders from a Japanese doctor? Why do Asian patients rarely ask for pain medication, while Mediterranean patients seem to seek relief for even the slightest discomfort?
If the goal of the American medical system is to provide optimal care for all patients, healthcare providers must understand cultural differences that create conflicts and misunderstandings and can result in inferior medical care.
Caring for Patients from Different Cultures contains over 200 case studies illustrating cross-cultural misunderstanding and culturally competent healthcare. The chapters cover a diverse range of topics, including birth, end of life, traditional medicine, mental health, pain, religion and multicultural staff issues.
"A must read for any healthcare professional."-Caregiver Journal
Geri-Ann Galanti is on the faculty of the Department of Anthropology at California State University, Los Angeles, the Division of Nursing at California State University, Dominquez Hills, and the Doctoring Curriculum at the UCLA School of Medicine.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003, Softcover, 296 pp.
The Stone Problems of Urinary Bladder and the Bladder Incision
This book highlights Vincenz Kern's life work to transform surgery from a craft to a science--documenting the birth of endourology--and includes several of Kern's published descriptions on bladder stones and lithotomy.
The debate lithotomy versus lithotripsy, Kern versus Civiale, is not only a final example of a traditional academic dispute, but also documents the birth of a new specialty, endourology. Surprisingly, the reduced invasiveness of the new method--not "cutting for the stone" by employing new technology--is not debated. The main driving force for the victory march of minimally invasive procedures, namely the viewpoint of the patient, is here totally neglected. This raises the controversy from an academic dispute of mere historic interest to a fine example of a high-level, but misdirected experts' debate.
|
