Professor Joe Petersburger is conducting a countrywide study, investigating international medical students’ well-being and mental health. The survey is accredited and anonymous.
He has asked for my help in bringing this survey to medical students in Hungary. Please take 12-18 minutes of your time to fill out this survey: https://forms.gle/dmuv2kVZNjMJrteu9
Spoiler alert: It’s not good.
I’ve spent way too much time writing 21 pages about my experience with the medical university of Pécs, intended to give potential students a look into the life of a student at POTE. You’ll find it in the sidebar.
I also want other students to be able to share their opinion about the university with potential students here. The only thing I require of you is to answer the simple question of “would you recommend this university to a friend or not”. Other than that, you can write whatever you want. Both positive and negative experiences are welcome of course. If you want do to so, message me (email or messenger) with what you want posted and whether you want to be anonymous or not.
The oral state exam. The last ever exam at medical school.
It’s not known to be difficult; in fact, it’s known to be more of a formality. Virtually no one fail, and people get good grades despite being unable to answer many of their questions.
Even knowing this, the days before the exams were tough. I wasn’t afraid that I wouldn’t pass, but I was still very stressed. I can’t recall the last time I actually couldn’t eat for days due to stress. But hopefully this was the last time.
On the day of the written state exam (May 25th for us), all 6th year students receive a schedule for the oral state exam, showing you which day you’ll have the exam on. It’s mostly in alphabetical order, and mine was to be June 1st.
On your designated day of oral state exam, at 7:30 in the morning, a Teams group call begins with officials from the university and all the students who are to have their exams that day. There, the officials randomly draw which department each student is to have their exam at. The students must show up at that department at 8:45, and the exam begins at 9.
At 9 you will get a patient to examine. In some departments, mostly ob/gyn and psych, you’re only to take the patient history and not do any physical examination. Following this, there is a practical part where an examiner asks you questions regarding the case and asks you to show certain examinations. This differs a bit from department to department, as some departments combine this “practical examination” with the theoretical examination which comes next.
The next is the theoretical examination. In each department 4 – 5 examiners from different departments/specialities form a board which will examine you. Some of these examiners may be from other medical universities in Hungary. They’ll ask you a few questions from their own specialities, and often look at your thesis and ask you a few questions about it as well.
Some departments won’t give you your grade until everyone has finished their theoretical examination that day, while some give it right away. After you get your grade (and a small rite of passage from the examiners), you’re free of the tyranny!
The uni officials drew psychiatry department for me. I went there at 8:30. At 9 I get a patient. Many patients at the psychiatry clinic speak English, so students having their exams there usually get an English-speaking patient. Initially, they told me that there were no available English-speaking patients, and that I would have to get one who only speaks Hungarian, but that a resident would help me out, but when I got my patient, they did speak English, so I was glad. We sat down and had a nice chat for some time as I tried to take their medical history.
After I was finished, the resident comes and talks to me about the patient (not to examine me). She shows me the patient’s chart and medication list, explains their findings, and answers my questions about the patient. Then, there was nothing to do but wait for the board.
I was the second to last student to enter the room. The board consisted of prof Tamás Tenyi from psych, prof András Tárnok from paeds, prof Imre Szabó from internal medicine gastroenterology, and prof András Papp from general surgery. They ask for my thesis (but not my ID or skillbook, neither of which I didn’t have to show), and they start skimming it while prof Tenyi asks me to talk about the patient.
My patient had psychotic symptoms, so after I was done presenting the patient, he starts asking questions related to this.
Sometime around this point in time, I realise that there is a lot of tension in the room. Everyone is just staring at me, not smiling, while I mostly look at the floor. A friend of mine had the exam earlier that day with the same board, and he talked about how chill the atmosphere was and how everyone was laughing. When I realised that my exam had a totally different atmosphere, I start to get a bit anxious. Was there tension because I was doing poorly? Or do they not like me?
I think that was the questions I got from psych. He says that he’s finished, and gives the word to prof. Tárnok. He introduces himself, and says that he finds my thesis very interesting as he’s an expert on IBD.
I think he had more questions, but I can’t recall them anymore. Eventually he gives the word to prof. Szabó.
He gives the word to the final member of the board, prof. Papp.
And that was the last question. Before I leave, prof. Tárnok asks whether I’m certain that I don’t want to be a gastroenterologist. Before I can answer, prof. Papp says (in a joking, non-malicious way) “no, it’s too difficult for him”, after which everyone laughed a bit. It may sound rude, but I could tell that he didn’t mean it in a rude way. The fact that everyone laughed made me feel a bit better.
I think I was in for 20 – 25 minutes. In most cases, no one gets their grade until everyone has had their theoretical part, and that was the case for my group as well. Luckily, I was the second to last student, so I only had to wait for one student to finish to get to know my grade.
I felt pretty shit before the exam, but I actually felt even more shit after it. I knew that they don’t fail anyone, but I felt like I answered wrongly on almost every question they had, and I had an unshakeable feeling that I’d failed.
After the last student finishes, they call all the students back into the room where we had the exam. Prof. Tenyi opens with a small “rite of passage” where he says that from this day on, we’re no longer students, but that the medical profession requires regular studying to stay up to date, etc etc. This made me feel pretty secure that I’d passed, but he follows it up with “however, the performances have not been equal” or something like that. He starts by reading the grades of everyone in the order they had the exam.
As soon as they say my name and “five”, I immediately burst into tears, in front of everyone. Like, proper ugly crying. The relief was immeasurable. Luckily I was the second to last student, so I only cried while they were reading the result of one more student. As soon as they finish and congratulate everyone, I turn to hug and cry in a friend of mine’s arms who also had the exam that day.
I leave the room, and outside some of my closest and bestest friends are waiting for me with lots of beautiful flowers and bouquets, and so my crying reinforces as the tears are no longer just tears of tiredness and relief, but from being super touched as well. They see me ugly crying and assume the worst (understandably), but I tell them I got a 5, and they become a bit confused as to why I’m crying so much. While outside, still crying, prof. T´´arnok comes over to shake my hand and congratulate me. Just a bit awkward.
A select few graduating students had experiences like me, where they were in for a long time and got asked some difficult questions. The vast majority had really simple, 5 – 10 minute exams with baby questions. But, the most important thing is that, no matter which of these two group you end up belonging to, you’ll pass. The oral state exam is not an exame where anyone fails, but it’s still a source of severe anxiety for many, as it’s the last of the last, and failing it would be devestating. Personally, I was super nervous and lost my appetite for almost a whole week before the exam, and it took some days after the exam for these feelings to disappear. Honestly, by having a terrible oral state exam experience, you’ll leave the university with a proper POTE exam as your last exam experience, which is kind of poetic. Full circle.
In the two weeks since the exam, the graduating students have celebrated, by dancing in a public fountain to the music of a live band (a POTE tradition), by going on a trip to lake Balaton, and by partying a lot. We’ve also rested, for the first time in 6+ years without any school-related worries. Even 2 weeks after finishing, we still have moments of realisation, where we realise that we’re actually actually finished. Our Neptun now shows our student status as “Graduated”. From now on, the adult life starts, and a big chapter of our lives is completed, for good and bad.
I’ll write a post later with what’s next for the website. Even though I’m finished, I still have plans to improve and maintain it, and I’ll definitely not take it down, as many have been worried about.
Congratulations to the graduating class of 2022!
The written state exam is May 25th. For those who are unaware, this exam consists of 180 multiple choice questions in 150 minutes, and all the questions are provided upfront on the website finalexam.hu. However, the website only allows viewing 20 questions at a time. Questions may change every year, and so documents from previous years containing all questions are likely not very useful. As such, it’s beneficial to find a method of collecting all questions into a document. Copying and pasting manually takes a lot of time, so I tried to come up with a better solution.
I don’t have a lot of experience with programming, but I knew that I know enough to program a script which automated the process. After a few days of working on it, it’s finished. The repository for the source code is here, and the code will likely continue to work in the future, and so can probably be reused in the future.
I’ve uploaded the document with all the questions to the facebook group for 6th year.
Next, I’ll try to automate the process of converting the questions to flashcards.
Edit: Flashcard conversion is done. The repository is here, and the flashcards have been uploaded to the facebook group.
Edit2: The link to the 2022 state exam questions anki is here. Note that questions may change from year to year, so it would be best if someone remade the anki every year using the tools I made (or with self-made tools).
So I had my internal medicine final at 1st department on the 21st. A notice on Neptun told us to meet at the “Clinical and Educational office” in the B wing of the 2nd floor (room B227) at 8:00, and to bring our 8 case reports and certificate of finishing the practice. When we arrived, they took photocopies of the case reports and certificate, and gave us a paper which we were to bring to the practical part of the exam. We were told to wait outside, and eventually prof. Gabriella Pár comes and gets us and gives a patient each. We were two students per room, each with their separate patient. She tells us that she’ll be back to ask what we’d found in 30 minutes.
I introduce myself to the patient and begin taking the anamnesis and performing the physical examination. After me and the other student finish with each of our patients, we leave the room and wait for the professor in the hallway while we collect our thoughts on the patient. While waiting, my patient comes out of the room and offers both of us some tea ❤️.
Eventually, after maybe an hour, the professor arrives. She asks me what I’d found, and I begin presenting my findings. My patient had arrived to the hospital due to abdominal pain which occured after eating. She stops me and begins asking questions.
This is something I wouldn’t have learned unless a friend of mine had gotten the same question and warned me about it, so I looked it up in the lecture.
I’ve always thought that one beer was one unit, and I’m pretty sure it said on the lecture that one unit is 10 g.
I percuss the border of the liver.
That’s a problem I’d never considered or heard of before, but I figured that the only way it can disappear is if air gets between the abdominal wall and the liver.
I was kind of confused, because I know of no internal medicine-related treatment of GI perforation. Could there be an endoscopic procedure? No, there can’t be. It has to be…
And that was the last of the question on the practical part. She writes a 5 on the paper from earlier, and signs and stamps it (of course). She tells me that my examiner will be prof. Alizadeh and that the theoretical part will take part in the science building in room B001, and that he’s impatient and that I have to hurry there, so I thank my patient and rush over there.
After rushing over there, I found like 10 students waiting outside the room. They’d also been told to hurry, just to have to wait when they got there. One person already finished their theoretical exam but didn’t get their grade because the examiners had told them that no one will get their grades until all 11 students have finished their theoretical examination. So I sit down to wait. After the 9 students before me have finished, it’s my turn. I go into the room, sit down in front of prof. Alizadeh of haematology and (I think) prof. Tótsimon of cardiology. In my fluster I tell them “good afternoon” even though it was like 10:30. As I sit down, Alizadeh leaves the room, presumably to go to the toilet. Prof. Tótsimon begins the questioning in his absence.
I try to think but I can’t recall it.
This is something I imagined could be a question, so I’d prepared for it. I close my eyes and try to visualise the mnemonic. To my own surprise, I recite it correctly.
At this point prof. Alizadeh returns to the room. Prof Tótsimon quickly explains him in Hungarian what we’ve talked about so far. Prof. Alizadeh continues:
I was not prepared for such a pharma question. I remember studying it in pharma but I hadn’t looked at it since. We spend some time in silence as I try to dig deep into my memory for the information, but I can’t recall it.
The hint made some gears turn in my head.
At first, I’m like, what. I’m pretty up to date on cardiology, but I can’t recall any new drugs for that indication. I know that SGLT2 inhibitors were recently indicated for heart failure as well. Could that be what he meant? But that’s not related to atherosclerosis.
Okay, but then it has to be them, right?
I knew it.
For the next part, I believe they gave me a hint which put me on the right track to the answer, but I can’t recall what the hint was. It might’ve been the first letter, “P”.
After waiting for the 11th student to finish their exam, everyone went back into the room one at a time to get their grades. As I enter when it’s my turn, the examiners are already on their way out, so I think they kind of forget about me. As they walk past me, they tell me that I got “excellent” and congratulated me.
And that was it! That was my last ever exam at POTE. Now only state exams remain. I was surprised to be asked such an amount of pharma questions, but anyway.
So I had my neurology final yesterday. The exam was to begin at 10:30 (which sucks, I prefer having early exams). I was waiting outside the neurology department (one floor up from psychiatry) with the other students. According to Neptun, our examiner was to be prof. Janszky.
It’s 10:30. A doctor comes and guides us to the department’s “library”, quotation marks because there were zero books in there..
She asks who of us had reflex hammers, which only I and a few other students had brought (but I’d forgotten my lab coat, so we were even). Those of us who had forgotten to bring lab coats were given disposable isolation gowns, and those who’d forgotten to bring a reflex hammer were either lent one or told to borrow from those who had one.
It’s 10:46. The doctor gives each of us a patient to examine, and tells us that we should perform a full neurological examination, and after 20 minutes, she’d return and ask what we’d found and ask a few questions.
So we do the examinations on our patients, and then we wait. The wait turns out to be more like one hour. (She had to examine four students before me, which is why it took so long.)
When she finally returns, it’s 11:38. She begins by asking me what I’d found. She then asks a few theoretical questions:
And that was it for the practical part. I didn’t answer all questions perfectly, but more or less, so I got 5 in the end. It took five minutes.
She tells me to go back to the library to draw topics. It’s 11:45, lunch time. I draw my three topics:
My B topic was great, C was okay, and A was not the best. I sit down to write my topics, but there are three students before me, plus the student who was currently having the exam. I knew it was going to be a long day, but I hadn’t brought food.
Time passes, but feels like it’s standing still. Each student’s exam takes like 20 minutes. The exam is happening in another room, so we have no idea how it’s going with the examinees. Hunger grows stronger and stronger. I look at the other students, and they ask me what the time is, as I had my watch. “12:30”, I say, and one student rubs their belly to signal that they’re really hungry. I know, I know. I am too.
I’m hungry, restless, and anxious as we’re sitting there waiting. Nothing is happening in the room; everyone’s is just waiting. The doctor watching over us is droodling on a piece of paper. I look outside the window, hoping to find something interesting to look at to pass the time, but the view consists of an opposing wall with flaking paint. My akathisia is getting to strong; I have to move. I get up and start walking back and fourth in the room. My watch counts 1149 steps as I keep walking to pass the time and ease my anxiety.
Finally, the last student before me returns from her exam. I look at my watch; it’s now 13:03. She walks me to prof. Janszky’s office. A nice office. The doctor who examined my practical part is present as the co-examiner. I sit down in a comfy chair, and he tell me that I can start with whichever topic I would like. Nice.
I began by mentioning everything I’d written down, except the part about Lambert-Eaton. I wasn’t sure if I should mention the treatment, but I did anyway and he didn’t correct me or stop me.
He asks me whether there are any other antibodies associated with MG. I forget about anti-MuSK so I mention the anti-VDCC antibodies, but he replies that they’re associated with Lambert-Eaton and not MG. I draw a complete blank on the anti-MuSK. After a while, he gives me the answer, and tells me to go to the next topic.
I begin with who needs a CT and who don’t. It’s probably not actually a part of the topic, but I found it interesting so I wanted to include it anyway. I open with “So I’m Norwegian, so I’ve looked at the Scandinavian guidelines” they laugh a bit and say something like “maybe they’re better”.
After explaining that, I begin by talking about how we only can treat secondary injuries and not primary, etc. etc. At some point he stops me to ask about the types of TBI. He begins with commotion (which I think is a Hungarian term for concussion), and asks me to list the others. I explain contusion, ICH, SAH, SDH, and EDH, and say that if there’s a haematoma we can drain it and if there’s bleeding in the intraventricular space, we can use a shunt. He agrees. Afterward I continue with the supportive treatments I’d listed for oedema, vasospasm, etc.
He asks me what the lucid interval is, and I answer. He asks me why we examine the eyes in TBI, and I say it’s because anisocoria could be present. He asks why anisocoria occurs, and I say herniation of the cerebral peduncles, to which he replies that it’s wrong, it’s rather uncal herniation. “In case of anisocoria, which pupil is on the side of the injury?”, to which I reply “the larger pupil”. He agrees.
He asks what another finding may be on the eyes in case of TBI. “Fixed pupil, when there’s no reaction to light”, I respond. He asks which nerve is affected in this case, and I say occulomotor. He signals for me to proceed to the last topic.
I begin by listing what I’d written down. I don’t get further than the IBM point until he interrupts me and tells me that we’re finished and that it’s a 5. Yay! The exam took 7 – 8 minutes.
On my way out, they ask me for the three envelopes each of my topics were inside when I drew them. I had forgotten them in the library, so I had to go and get them. Awkward!
I look at my watch. It’s 13:13.
Time for lunch.
My thesis defence was March 11th. My thesis topic was “Diet in Crohn disease – The effect of diet on the microbiome and its role as a therapeutic modality”. You can read it here. The thesis defence involves defending your thesis against a defence committee consisting of three people, two of which are your designated opponents.
My supervisor was the head of the gastroenterology division of the 1st department of internal medicine, prof. Áron Vincze. Him and dr. Judit Bajor were designated as my two opponents, and as opponents are supposed to do according to the rules, they gave me their separate evaluations of my thesis ahead of the defence.
I was informed of my thesis date by e-mail only 15 days ahead of time, a date they’d chosen without my input. I had already planned a practice in Norway at that date, a practice I had planned 6 months earlier. Plane tickets were already bought. I replied that the date is not appropriate for me, and that we either need to find another date (I had other suggestions which were within the deadline of April 1st) or have it online. The reply was that either of these options would be impossible (even though I know of other students who had it online or were allowed to choose the date themselves). I was also told that the middle of March was the “usual time” during which the 1st department holds its defences, but no one never informed me of this. This means that they were aware of the approximate date of the defence for a long time but decided to inform me only 2 weeks before.
Note that there were no critiques or questions in the opponents’ evaluation. In most cases, students receive questions ahead of time of their defence so they can prepare and answer these questions during the defence. I’d received none.
In most cases, the student is asked to hold a 5 – 10 minute presentation about their thesis during the defence, with or without a PowerPoint presentation. I asked whether I should prepare a pptx, and they replied no, so I assumed I’d have to hold a presentation with no visual help. However, I asked another student who were to have defence with the same department at the same date, and they were told that they shouldn’t have any presentation at all, and that the whole defence should only be reserved for the questions received ahead of time.
So I wasn’t going to hold a presentation, and I hadn’t received any questions. The last days before my defence I was really stressed because I had no idea what I would have to do at the defence. Would I only receive questions for which I couldn’t prepare? Had I received wrong information and would have to hold an impromptu presentation?
The gist of it is that there likely exist some possibilities for dietary treatment of Crohn disease, as evidenced mostly by 2 things: Firstly, the well-known efficacy of exclusive enteric nutrition (EEN), the practice of inducing remission in Crohn disease by putting the patient on a nutrition drink-only diet for 6+ weeks, and secondly, the fact that temporarily diverting the faecal stream by using a temporary stoma causes lesions distal to the diversion to heal, and the lesions only recur when the stoma is reversed, which indicates that components in the faeces are important in the development of these lesions. There are a few small studies with special diets for Crohn disease which show some promise, and these diets generally exclude certain food groups (gluten, milk protein, lactose, alcohol) as well as other modifications, but larger studies are needed. As of yet, there is not much evidence to recommend any specific dietary changes in Crohn disease.
The time of my defence were to be 13:20, so I showed up at approximately 13:00. It turns out that the student who were supposed to start at 13:00 hadn’t started their defence yet, because a member of the defence committee was late, so the whole ordeal was already delayed. While waiting, one member of the defence committee for my defence shows up and waits with us. We have a nice chat, and he tells me that neither of my opponents are present today, so their places on the committee has been replaced by two other doctors. However, according to him, on a defence committee only the opponents have actually read through the thesis, but since both of my opponents were absent that day, none of the members of my defence committee had read through my thesis (although in retrospect I believe one of the members might have read through it on his own initiative, but it’s impossible to know for sure).
He also tells me that I should begin the defence by summarising my thesis in 10 sentences, “of which the first four should be especially good”, and that they’d just ask a few questions and that would be that. I’m glad he told me that, so I at least had a few minutes to mentally prepare some sentences before going in. Eventually, after some delay, it’s my turn.
They invite me into the library, and ask me to take a seat at the table in front of the three committee members. They are, in no particular order: prof. József Zsimmer, prof. László Czopf, and prof. Imre Szabó. They begin by asking me to briefly summarise the topic of my thesis. I intended to make it 10 sentences but I think it ended up lasting 3 – 4 minutes instead. Some of the questions they followed up with which I remember were:
The last line of questioning was the most memorable one:
The last line of questioning really took me aback. I don’t know of the evidence that restricting certain food groups can be dangerous like he was talking about, and he obviously wasn’t aware of the studies I was talking about. I suppose vegans, vegetarians, coeliac disease, and lactose intolerance patients worldwide are living dangerously.
Following this, the committee leader thanks me for the presentation and “especially for your work”, which he said he thought was very nice and opens a window into a new area of IBD research. That was very nice of him to say.
Then they started discussing the grade. They check my opponents’ evaluations (both 5), and the leader of the committee suggests 5 as well and asks if the others agree. The member who held the last line of questioning replied that he would give “maximum a 4, maybe even a 3”, but luckily for me the other two members suggested 5 and majority rules. In total, the whole defence took approximately 15 minutes.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
So I had paediatrics final on the 3rd. We got no information on email ahead of the exam, but the time of the exam was 8:30 according to Neptun. I’d heard from other students who had the exam that I should show up at the southernmost part of the main corridor of the main building, close to where the library is. Because I’m an idiot I arrived a bit late, so I wasn’t among the first 3 students to be taken in. After the first student was done with their exam, I entered the room to draw topics and prepare.
The examiner that day was prof. Décsi, and the co-examiner was a young male doctor whose name I don’t know. After each student picked their topics, the professor allowed the co-examiner to choose one of the three topics to examine by himself.
My topics were:
The co-examiner chose the hepatomegaly topic to examine me in, and the professor asked me which topic I wanted to start with. I chose the immune system one.
I began by telling him what I’d written down. He then begins asking me questions.
Once again I began by telling him what I’d written down about ASD. I start to list symptoms of heart failure as I explain symptomatic ASD, and I mention hepatomegaly, poor growth, dyspnoea, sweating, problems with feeding. He then interrupts me with a question:
I continue with VSD and the rest of what I wrote down, and he has no questions after this. I continue with my last topic, at which point I turn to the co-examiner (as this was the topic he chose to examine me on).
I begin by listing the possible causes. I then continue like this:
My exam took about 10 minutes. Neither examiner interrupted me often while I was presenting my topic, and if they did it was usually just to say “yes” or “good” now and then, which was nice. I also think it was nice of the professor to allow the co-examiner to practice examination like this. As they say, it sucks to study for paeds but the exam is quite nice. It was a good experience.
I have my thesis defence on March 11th, and neuro on April 7th. Until then, I’ll be playing Elden ring.
Hei! Så hyggelig at du ville sjekke hva prosjektet mitt innebærer. Artiklene jeg har skrevet er sortert etter fag, som igjen er sortert etter studieår. Hvis du vil se på noen av dem kan du for eksempel ta en titt på artikkelen om antikoagulantia og antitrombotiske midler i farmakologi, artikkelen om O2 og CO2 transport i kroppen i fysiologi, artikkelen om intrauterin veksthemming i fødselsmedisin, artikkelen om akutt appendisitt i kirurgi, eller artikkelen om akutt koronarsykdom i indremedisin. Hvis du har lyst til å se litt statistikk om hvem og hvor mange som besøker nettsiden kan du se på det her.
Med vennlig hilsen Nikolas
PS. For my non-Norwegian-speaking visitors, this post warrants explaination. After finishing medical school as a Norwegian, before applying for residency in a specialisation, one must complete 18 months of medical “internship” in internal medicine, surgery, and general practice, called LIS1. The application period for LIS1 is now, and I mentioned this website on my application, so I figured I’d give all potential employers a proper welcome.
UPDATE: I did not get a spot for LIS1. I’ll have to apply again the next round, which is half a year after the first round.
So I had obgyn final on the 18th and psych final on the 19th.
We got an e-mail the day before that the exam would start at 9. The examiner was Péter Gőcze. We drew four topics, two from ob and two from gyn, and sat down to prepare. I drew good topics, in my opinion. These are the questions I was asked.
I began by telling him everything I’d written down. He then begins asking questions.
Once again I begin by telling him what I’d written down.
Once again I begin by telling him what I’d written down (except the part about trachelectomy).
I kept this for last because I didn’t actually know that many criteria and complications. I told him what I’d written down.
So that was it. I got a 4 in the end. The exam took like 20 minutes.
I don’t think he mentioned the name of the pre-pregnancy operation for cervical incompetence, and I’ve searched for it but found nothing. We never had a lecture or seminar on cervical incompetence, so how would I know about this?
Regarding the “Chrobak operation”, from what I can find it looks like this term is almost never used (subtotal hysterectomy instead). Also, we never had a lecture or seminar on this topic either.
Regarding screening patients for infection before cerclage, this appears to be controversial, and UpToDate states that there is insufficient evidence to support that preprocedure culture improves outcomes.
So I’ve spent a lot of time and resources writing notes for this. I’ve used many sources, including lectures, UpToDate, and the Norwegian guidelines for obstetrics and gynaecology. When I spend so much time and effort studying something, and end up not being able to answer questions on the exam because certain things were never taught to us, is basically unfindable in other sources, or not evidence-based, it makes me disappointed and annoyed. But anyway, I’m glad I’m done.
We got the email from Tényi the day before the exam that we would start at 7:00. We show up, both 6th year students and 5th year students from all three programmes. Luckily, he deliberately allowed the 6th year students to have the exam first.
There’s not to much to say about the exam. During the practice you write two patient case reports. In the exam he asked me what the two diagnoses were (schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa), and he asked me to explain a bit about the anorexia case, which I did. I realise in hindsight that I spoke mostly about my impressions around the case rather than stuff directly related to psychiatry, but it was fine. He then started asking the usual rapid-fire questions, beginning with questions related to anorexia and eating disorders, before turning to other questions.
I answered all questions correctly, except that I forgot narcissistic personality disorder when listing the cluster B ones, but it was fine. I got a 5 in the end, and the exam took like maybe 5 – 10 minutes? It was a nice experience.
I begin my paediatrics practice in Pécs on Monday, which will be my only practice in Pécs (except for 1 week of internal medicince, as I could only do 7 weeks in Norway). Paeds is my next exam, but luckily that’s some weeks away still, so I can take it easier for a while.