Raj Dasgupta, MD & Ted O’Connell, MD – Rethinking Medical Education in the Age of AI

Dr. Raj Dasgupta and Dr. Ted O’Connell join Dr. Michael Jerkins for a wide-ranging conversation on how medical education must evolve in an era shaped by artificial intelligence, shifting exam structures, and changing patient expectations.

From AI-powered learning tools to real-time evidence appraisal, the discussion explores how today’s trainees access information and how educators must adapt without compromising clinical reasoning. Dr. Dasgupta and Dr. O’Connell unpack the opportunities AI presents in both education and practice, while emphasizing the importance of teaching humility, source verification, and critical thinking in a world of instant answers.

The episode also tackles system-level questions: Has making USMLE Step 1 pass/fail helped or hurt? Do duty-hour restrictions produce better-trained physicians? And are we giving learners enough early, hands-on patient care in an increasingly team-based healthcare model?

Amid debates about automation and exam design, one theme remains constant: the human element of medicine is irreplaceable. Empathy, bedside presence, and the ability to make a patient feel seen cannot be outsourced to technology.

Here are five takeaways from the conversation with Dr. Dasgupta & Dr. O’Connell:

1. Rethink assessment beyond traditional exams

The effectiveness of exams like USMLE in predicting clinical competence is limited because they focus on rote knowledge rather than real-world reasoning and adaptability. This calls for integrating assessments that evaluate clinical reasoning, communication, and human judgment to ensure future physicians are truly prepared.

2. The human touch remains the key differentiator

While technological tools, including AI, enhance efficiency, they cannot replace the genuine human connection, empathy, and interpersonal skills that define effective patient care. Medical education should prioritize experiential learning that emphasizes these skills to build patient rapport and improve outcomes.

3. Medical training must evolve with societal and team-oriented changes

The shift towards collaboration and team-based care requires rethinking recruitment and curriculum design to favor team-strategic thinkers. This approach ensures adaptability in integrated care models and addresses workforce shortages.

4. Embrace AI as a tool for upskilling, not de-skilling

AI can be used to simulate cases, practice reasoning, and reinforce core skills efficiently if integrated thoughtfully into education. This helps lower barriers to repeated practice, enhances diagnostic reasoning, and reduces skill gaps.

5. The art of clinical reasoning is rooted in humility and real-time inquiry

Modeling honesty about uncertainty and demonstrating how to look up information transparently cultivates critical thinking and skepticism. This approach fosters better decision-making and encourages lifelong curiosity over memorization.

Transcript

Raj Dasgupta:
One of the things I notice is that people immediately grab their phones and go to ChatGPT or AI. It’s not even that I’m competing with them anymore—I’m competing with how fast they can type something in and get an answer. So it makes you wonder, are we really learning? Are we doing the same things as before?

And it just feels different now. With all the restrictions—how much people can work, when they can work, prioritizing well-being, wanting time off—it’s just a different environment.

Michael Jerkins:
Welcome back to another episode of The Podcast for Doctors (By Doctors). I’m Dr. Michael Jerkins, recording from our brand new studio. And today, we’re not joined by just one guest—but two. So really, two episodes for the price of one.

Both of our guests are leaders in medical education, doing some really interesting work with medical students, residents, and fellows—especially in what feels like a rapidly changing and sometimes chaotic environment.

I’m excited to talk with them about how doctors should be learning today, what strategies actually work, and how AI is shaping education. We’ll also dig into what changes might be needed in medical training overall.

So without further delay, let’s get to it.

Today on The Podcast for Doctors (By Doctors), we’re joined by two leaders in medical education:

Dr. Ted O’Connell is the Director of Medical Education for Kaiser Permanente Northern California and an Associate Clinical Professor at UC San Francisco School of Medicine. A longtime residency program director, he’s authored and edited dozens of textbooks and hundreds of chapters, and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier ClinicalKey Student. He’s also an award-winning podcast host with over two decades of experience shaping future physicians.

We’re also joined by Dr. Raj Dasgupta, a four-time board-certified physician in internal medicine, pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He’s an Associate Professor at UC Riverside and Associate Program Director of Internal Medicine Residency at Huntington Health. An internationally recognized educator and board review expert, he’s spent over 20 years teaching physicians worldwide—and also hosts multiple medical podcasts.

Dr. O’Connell, Dr. Dasgupta—welcome to the show.

RD:
Thank you so much for having us. I’ll speak for Ted—we’re honored to be here.

MJ:
Well, thank you both. And having two physician podcasters on the show definitely adds some pressure, so feel free to give me feedback afterward.

Dr. Raj, I’ll start with you. Do you think the current medical education system actually works—or are we just maintaining a traditional structure because it’s always been there?

RD:
That’s a great question. And honestly, as I’ve gotten older, I feel like I’m becoming a bit of a dinosaur—I keep saying, “When I was a resident, when I was a fellow…”

We just finished interview season, and things have definitely changed. I think we’re trying to move in the right direction, but there are gaps.

For example, interpersonal skills—just talking to someone in person—those are getting lost. Everything is on Zoom now. When I applied for residency, you had to travel for interviews. If your flight was delayed, you missed it—and that was it. It was serious. You showed up, shook hands, had real conversations.

Now, there’s almost a sense of apathy sometimes. People are just checking boxes.

And when I think about teaching, I grew up in the Socratic method. Rounds were engaging—you were asked questions, you had to think. Not in a way that made people feel bad, but in a way that pushed you to learn.

Now, when you ask a question, the first thing people do is grab their phone and look it up. So again, I wonder—are we really learning?

And then there are all the constraints today—work-hour limits, focus on well-being, wanting time off. It’s just a different culture.

I think I’ve had to grow and adapt as a leader. Not everything from the past was perfect, but there are definitely things we shouldn’t lose.

MJ:
That’s interesting. And part of what you’re getting at is whether programs really get to know applicants—and vice versa.

Honestly, for me, the most valuable part of interviews wasn’t the formal interview day. It was the dinner or happy hour the night before, where you could just be a human with other humans.

So when you say “apathy,” do you mean from applicants, interviewers, or both?

RD:
Both.

From the interviewer side, it’s tough—you’re juggling clinical work, patients, and interviews. But candidates have worked hard for that time, so you want to give them your best. Still, there can be some disengagement.

On the applicant side, they’ve already checked all the boxes. They know what they need to do. And on Zoom, you can tell when someone isn’t fully present.

That wasn’t the case when people traveled across the country for interviews—they were all in.

MJ:
Dr. O’Connell, what’s your take? Are there parts of medical education that feel outdated?

TO:
I’ll give you a bit of a hot take—there are a lot of opportunities to rethink medical education.

First, we should think about who we’re recruiting. Medicine used to be much more individual—solo practitioners running their own practices. Now, healthcare is a team sport.

But the way we select students is still very focused on individual achievement. Shouldn’t we be prioritizing people who are strong team players?

Then there’s the curriculum. Some schools are doing a better job introducing patient care earlier, which is great. But with more medical schools opening—especially those without strong clinical affiliations—there’s a risk that clinical experience becomes diluted.

Then you add AI into the mix. No one has really figured out how to integrate it into training yet.

And on a broader level, we have workforce issues. It’s not just about the number of physicians—it’s about distribution and specialization.

Take colonoscopies, for example. We don’t have enough providers to meet demand. Do you really need full internal medicine training plus a GI fellowship just to perform screening colonoscopies? Or could we train people in more focused roles?

In some countries, non-physicians perform specific procedures like hernia repairs. They’re highly trained within a narrow scope. Maybe we need to think more creatively like that.

MJ:
So is it that we don’t have enough physicians—or that they’re just in the wrong places?

TO:
Both. There’s maldistribution, and there probably aren’t enough overall—especially in certain specialties.

MJ:
That makes sense. I’ve also heard of programs training family medicine physicians in focused subspecialty areas like urology.

TO:
Exactly. Take something like vasectomies. Does that require the full training of a urologist? Probably not.

We could train others to do those procedures safely and efficiently. Right now, we’re not always using our workforce in the most effective way.

MJ:
Dr. Raj, shifting back to teaching—what do you do on rounds when learners immediately reach for AI tools?

RD:
It comes down to expectations and culture.

Earlier in my career, I thought putting people on the spot was the best way to teach. But over time, I’ve realized that’s not always effective.

Now, I focus on creating a positive environment. I always tell learners that my favorite answer is, “I don’t know.”

I don’t care how many facts you’ve memorized. I care about engagement, curiosity, and willingness to learn.

I don’t try to ban phones—that’s unrealistic. Instead, I adapt. Even in large lectures, you can’t expect people to never check their phones.

And honestly, sometimes learners find the right answer quickly, and that’s okay. You can build on that.

What matters is teaching them to think critically, not just copy answers.

And AI is becoming part of that conversation. I even saw it portrayed in a TV show recently—where a resident relied on AI but didn’t verify the information. That’s real life now.

So my approach is simple: create a supportive environment, encourage participation, and teach people how to use these tools responsibly.

MJ:
Yeah, you can’t really solve for that. Like you said, it’s not realistic to say no one is ever allowed to use this really powerful tool—it can actually help. We need to teach people how to use it responsibly. That’s probably our role as attendings—to model that.

But Dr. O’Connell, how do you teach reasoning? Dr. Raj, you mentioned you hate memorizing—I was terrible at that too. Pharmacology was rough for me. But how do you teach reasoning when tools can essentially reason for you?

TO:
That’s actually one of the main transitions in training. Early on, it’s knowledge acquisition. But as you progress, it’s about applying that knowledge through clinical reasoning.

And I want to echo something Raj said—there’s something powerful about saying, “I don’t know.” As an attending, saying, “Let’s look that up together,” models humility and good patient care.

A lot of training is really about learning where to find information and how to evaluate it. Whether it’s open evidence, UpToDate, or primary literature, you need to assess the source—was the study well designed, were there confounders?

Even in the AI world, you should be asking:

Are the references real?

Were they hallucinated?

Can I verify them?

Teaching clinical reasoning includes teaching that skepticism.

MJ:
Yeah, and I wonder what the standard will eventually be for integrating AI into training.

Because patients are already using it—they’re feeding what we say into models in real time. That’s not necessarily bad. I want patients to feel empowered. But we also have to model how to interpret that output—what makes sense, what doesn’t.

So not just for learners, but for patients too, we’re teaching how to use these tools.

Do you worry about de-skilling?

TO:
Not at this point.

I actually think there’s an opportunity to upskill. Students can use these tools to simulate cases, get more reps, and practice reasoning anytime.

Instead of needing standardized patients, you can generate scenarios instantly and work through them.

I haven’t seen learners relying on it so heavily that it harms their development—at least not yet.

MJ:
Dr. Raj, what about you?

RD:
I’d say yes—but with nuance.

Has it harmed patient care? No. But the process has changed.

Everything now is order sets and panels. Take infections—you don’t always think through the differential like before. You just run a panel that tests for everything.

Same with diarrhea—you don’t necessarily take a deep history first, you just check everything.

So yes, the thinking process has changed.

And I always think about this: what if there’s no power? No systems? Someone comes in with pleuritic chest pain—what’s your differential? What do you look for? What do you order and why?

You can’t rely on your phone in that moment. I want clinicians who understand the reasoning, not just how to click.

There’s a structured way to approach medicine, and I do think we’re losing some of that.

It’s fine to use AI after you’ve formed your own assessment—to expand your thinking. But are we doing that? Or are we just generating everything from the start?

Especially in critical care, everything is protocol-driven now. It changes how we practice.

No, I don’t think patients are being harmed—but the landscape is definitely different.

And future generations? They won’t approach medicine the same way we did.

MJ:
That’s fair.

Let me ask you this—there are definitely older physicians who would say our generation is worse at certain things because we rely on more tools.

Do you think there’s something our generation is worse at compared to the previous one?

RD:
Yeah, I think one area for me personally has been adapting to technology.

Different hospitals, different EMRs—you have to learn them. You can’t avoid it. They help with communication, results, workflows. I can’t be afraid of that.

Also, independence. I don’t want to fall into the trap of relying on residents or fellows to do everything. I need to stay sharp.

Being a great doctor today isn’t just about teaching—it’s also about navigating systems and using technology effectively.

MJ:
Dr. O’Connell, what about this idea from Elon Musk that people shouldn’t go to medical school anymore because of AI?

TO:
I disagree.

We’re a few years into this AI era and physicians aren’t being replaced.

Medicine is both an art and a science. That human connection—talking, listening, examining patients—that’s not going away.

We saw during the pandemic that while telehealth expanded, patients still wanted in-person care.

That core human element is fundamental.

MJ:
Yeah, exactly.

It’s easy to say a model passed a board exam—but patients don’t present like multiple-choice questions.

They don’t come in with a perfectly written prompt and five answer choices.

There was a study—I might butcher this—but they gave models clinical scenarios and got high accuracy. But when humans interacted with the model and added real-world variability, accuracy dropped significantly.

That’s because patients aren’t robots.

Context matters—and humans are still better at handling that.

Dr. Raj, anything you’d add?

Raj Dasgupta:
No—oh my god. I think the best part about being a doctor, for me, has always been that human touch. I’m going to tell you, most of my patients love to see me just to chat about their life. And I think the best way to make someone feel better is simply making them smile—and you can’t teach that.

I could go on about the importance of it. When I think about newer generations, everything happening on Zoom, not interacting in person, not knowing how to talk to someone older than you, younger than you, with dementia, or a child with autism—that’s a skill. Experience is so important. So I love everything you guys are saying. It’s all about the human touch.

TO:
Yeah, there’s a big difference between a computer being able to answer board questions and being a physician. There are facial expressions, changes in tone, even the way a patient looks.

Raj can walk into a room and determine sick versus not sick just by looking at someone’s face after doing this for 20-plus years, right? I’m not hearing AI do that yet—and I don’t know how you would ever program it to.

There are just so many subtleties in what we do. We need to separate out: yes, it did well on a USMLE exam versus yes, it’s a good doctor.

MJ:
I’d like to talk about USMLE, but let me back up first. Can you explain how you guys met and started working together? I don’t think I’ve done a great job explaining that to the audience yet.

TO:
Sure. We’ve known each other a long time, so it’s a little hard to pinpoint exactly when, but we’re both authors for Elsevier, the largest scientific publishing company in the world.

We were introduced through our acquisition editor, Jim Merritt. From there, we hit it off and started working on projects together. Now we’ve built an online platform to provide study materials for students—mostly free—and heavily focused on audio so they can learn while doing other things and hopefully get some time back in their day.

That’s my recollection, Raj—anything to add?

RD:
No, that’s exactly right. I’ll just build his ego a little—he wrote Secrets, Crush Step Boards, and I always admired his books.

We both work with Elsevier—they’ve treated me really well. What I love about Ted is he got into podcasting and then recruited me. I was like, “Dude, I’m already doing so much—why a podcast?” And he said, “Raj, you talk so much, you have to do a podcast.”

And he was right. Now I’m part of three different podcasts. We’ve built something together and we really care about helping students—free questions, high-quality content, learning on the go. We genuinely love it.

MJ:
Amazing. I’ve actually used your products before, so thank you for that.

I want to focus on your work with the USMLE. First question—do you think it’s effective? Do you think the USMLE actually evaluates whether someone can become a practicing doctor?

RD:
I’ll say this—I was really sad when Step 1 became pass/fail.

Maybe it’s the dinosaur in me, but part of what shaped me was studying under pressure. And I understand the concerns—mental health, burnout, all of that is real—but I did feel like something was lost.

And then if that’s the concern, why shift all the pressure to Step 2? That doesn’t really solve the problem.

I love studying for boards. I’m studying for my internal medicine boards right now—my third recertification. To me, being a doctor means being a lifelong learner. These exams aren’t just for you—they’re for your patients.

Is it the perfect system? No. But that feeling when you pass Step 1 or get your score—it’s priceless. I still remember mine. I worked really hard for it, and it meant something.

MJ:
So you love them—that’s a hot take.

Dr. O’Connell, do you think the USMLE is effective at evaluating whether someone should continue in medical training?

TO:
It’s a mixed bag. There’s nuance here.

There absolutely needs to be a level of knowledge acquisition to become a physician. Yes, you can look things up—but you still need a strong foundation to apply that knowledge in clinical scenarios.

At the same time, there are real issues—bias, unequal access to expensive prep resources, differences in life circumstances, and challenges with standardized testing.

But we do need some kind of benchmark. We wouldn’t trust a CPA who hasn’t passed their exams, or a lawyer who hasn’t passed the bar, or a pilot who hasn’t completed their training.

The issue is that these exams have become tools for residency selection, which wasn’t their original purpose. They were meant to ensure competency for licensure.

If we could get back to that original intent, that would be ideal.

MJ:
That makes sense. There’s also the issue of attrition. Nearly everyone who enters residency finishes it, but that’s not the case in medical school.

But here’s the hard question: you have someone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. If you decide they shouldn’t continue in training, you’re potentially leaving them with that debt and no clear path forward.

How do you handle a resident who shouldn’t progress?

Dr. Raj, I’ll ask you first.

RD:
That question always makes me emotional.

I have a huge place in my heart for international medical graduates—especially those who were already physicians in their home countries. My father-in-law was a cardiologist before coming to the U.S. He started over, studied again, faced challenges, and became a cardiologist here.

I see people like that all the time—working incredibly hard just for a chance.

And then there’s the reality that this process is heavily monetized. That part bothers me.

For me personally, I’m studying for boards right now while dealing with a lot—my son has severe autism, my dad passed away, I’m helping care for my mom. And the reality is, no one adjusts expectations for that. You still have to show up.

That’s what this process teaches—it’s not just memorization. It’s resilience.

I wish more people had the opportunity to become doctors. There are so many who deserve it.

MJ:
Thank you for sharing that.

Quick follow-up—how do you study for boards as an educator?

RD:
I teach—that’s the key.

I don’t cram. If you’re studying one month before your exam, that’s not the move. I start early, stay organized, and keep it consistent.

I use active learning—teaching residents, reviewing questions, staying engaged. I also use harder question banks to challenge myself.

And honestly, it’s about balance. That’s why we built tools for learning on the go—podcasts, mobile learning—so people can fit it into real life.

MJ:
That’s great.

Dr. O’Connell—back to the earlier question. How do you approach a resident who ultimately shouldn’t continue?

TO:
Well, my first thought when that happens is: what happened at the checkpoints along the way? Especially at the medical school level—this is an institution that, in most cases, is accepting tuition. Did they do their due diligence? Did they adequately support that learner, or did they just collect tuition and move them along?

There’s not much to be done about that in hindsight, but it always makes me wonder—did that student receive what they paid for?

Once they’re in residency and struggling, it really becomes about figuring out why. Is it an attentional issue? Life circumstances? Mental health, like depression? Something else? You have to identify the root cause to best support them.

It’s also important to ask: does this person actually want to be a physician? Some people get far down the path and then realize it’s not what they want. And if that’s the case, there are still plenty of careers—consulting, pharma, and others—where they can leverage their medical training and potentially be happier.

Sometimes it’s about narrowing scope—focusing more, maybe through a fellowship or a more defined practice area. Ultimately, it takes open and honest conversations to help them figure out the right path forward.

MJ:
Yeah, it’s tough—especially with the financial implications. Even if they don’t want to be a physician, if they have $400,000 in student loans, that decision may already be made for them.

Switching gears a bit—when I was a resident, I don’t think I studied very effectively. I was just trying to survive. I had a family, I was in the hospital constantly. But I had an attending who told me: take one case you saw that day, spend 10 minutes reading about it before you leave, and over time, that adds up.

But you guys are educators—you know the research. What tips do you give residents on how to study while managing their workload?

TO:
You really hit the nail on the head—it’s incredibly hard to study as a resident.

In medical school, you’re essentially a professional student. It’s structured, you have time, resources, and a cohort studying alongside you. Residency is completely different—your primary role is patient care, and learning happens along the way.

That advice you received is excellent. Learning in the context of a patient sticks much better. Studying hyponatremia while managing a real patient is far more impactful than just memorizing an algorithm.

I also think microlearning is key—especially during rounds. Looking something up in the moment, even for 30–60 seconds, can be incredibly powerful. If you do that a dozen times a day, that’s meaningful, focused learning that builds your clinical repertoire over time.

MJ:
Totally. In med school, you could sit and study for hours. I was recently at a med school and saw students in the library—some studying, some on their phones—and it reminded me of that feeling of thinking you’re studying just because you’re there.

There’s this anxiety of not doing enough, but in reality, a lot of that time wasn’t effective. That’s why what you guys are doing is so helpful.

We’re coming up on time, so let’s do a quick rapid-fire—true or false. I’ll start with you, Dr. O’Connell.

Medical school should be three years instead of four.

TO:
False—for most cases.

MJ:
Why?

TO:
There’s just a tremendous amount of knowledge to acquire—but more importantly, clinical reasoning and patient interaction take time to develop.

Yes, there are arguments about the fourth year—electives, interview time—but sub-internships are incredibly valuable. And honestly, having that fourth year to decompress a bit before residency has real benefits.

The volume of medical knowledge is also growing rapidly—it’s doubling every 73 days. That’s hard to compress into three years.

That said, there are successful accelerated programs, but for most learners, four years is appropriate.

MJ:
Dr. Raj—true or false?

RD:
False—it should be longer.

I’m going to focus on maturity. Being a great doctor isn’t just about knowledge—it’s about how you interact with people, how you carry yourself, how you communicate.

Some of the best residents I’ve worked with are married, have kids, or have gone through difficult life experiences. That shapes you in ways knowledge alone can’t.

Medicine is lifelong learning—and that should be something you want. I love reading cases, even outside my specialty. That’s the joy of it.

My advice for studying in residency? Find the right mentor. Teach others. Lead discussions. Use the whiteboard. Volunteer for morning report.

If you don’t enjoy learning, medicine is a tough field to choose—because that’s the best part of it.

MJ:
Yeah, that makes sense. The only counterpoint I’d add is that fourth year often comes with less structured learning but the same tuition—which isn’t cheap.

Alright, next one. Dr. Raj—true or false:

Duty hour restrictions in residency have produced better doctors.

RD:
That’s a tough one.

I trained before duty hour restrictions, and I also did critical care. I’m also board-certified in sleep medicine, so I understand the impact of sleep deprivation.

But part of life is that not everything is structured or protected. Sometimes you’re working overnight, then working again the next day because you have responsibilities.

Of course, patient care is number one, and resident well-being is right there with it. I care deeply about my residents.

But I do wonder sometimes—are these rules making people a little less willing to push themselves to their full potential?

It’s hard to say. There are incredible doctors from both systems. So I’ll say…

Ted, can we cheat on this one?

MJ:
It sounds like you’re saying false.

RD:
I’ll say false.

MJ:
Dr. O’Connell—true or false: duty hour restrictions in residency have produced better doctors?

TO:
False. I wouldn’t say they’ve produced worse doctors either—it’s just different.

In some ways, the work has been compressed. Instead of 16 hours, it’s now 10 or 12, but you’re still expected to get the same amount done. That creates a different kind of pressure.

It may also reduce reps. In procedural specialties, some trainees feel like they need fellowships just to get enough experience. There are unintended consequences.

Hopefully, it’s improved fatigue and patient safety—but I don’t think it’s clearly produced better doctors.

MJ:
Alright—last true or false. Dr. O’Connell: making Step 1 pass/fail has been a net positive for medical education.

TO:
False. Again, well-intentioned—but unintended consequences.

It’s really just shifted pressure onto Step 2 without solving much. We probably need to rethink how we use these exams and what they’re actually measuring.

Ideally, they’d either all be scored or all be pass/fail. But as it stands, I don’t think it’s been a net positive.

MJ:
I think I know Dr. Raj’s answer—but Dr. Raj, making Step 1 pass/fail has been a net positive: true or false?

RD:
False—it’s been more negative.

I wish everyone could experience what it felt like to pass Step 1. I remember crying, hugging my parents, studying late nights—it meant something.

Yes, memorization gets a bad reputation, but there’s real value there. On the wards, when we’re talking about mechanisms—how a drug works, what cell it targets, basic physiology—those things matter.

Sometimes I’ll ask about mechanism of action and people don’t know. That foundation comes from Step 1.

I take pride in the training we went through. Clinical knowledge is critical, but we can’t lose the importance of basic science—it plays a role in everything we do.

MJ:
Love it. Last question—we ask every guest: what’s one thing you’ve recently changed your mind about? Dr. Raj?

RD:
For me, it’s how I approach critical care.

For a long time, I thought the most important thing was procedures—intubations, lines, interventions. But after personal experiences—losing my dad to Alzheimer’s, caring for my son with severe autism—I’ve realized something different.

The most important thing is communication. Talking with families, understanding goals of care.

I’ve really come to appreciate palliative care, geriatrics, hospice—areas that are often underutilized.

Now, the best outcome isn’t always doing more—it’s respecting the patient’s wishes and making sure the family feels heard and supported.

MJ:
Love that. Dr. O’Connell?

TO:
I’ll say medical dramas.

I started medical school when ER came out, and it definitely influenced me. But once I got into real clinical care, I lost interest—it felt like work on top of work.

Scrubs is different—it’s a comedy, one of the best medical shows ever.

But recently, I started watching The Pit, and it’s changed my perspective. It’s incredibly realistic. There’s something different about it.

So I’ve come back around on medical dramas—just in the last couple of weeks.

MJ:
We’ve had other guests say the same thing. I still haven’t watched it, but I probably should.

This has been great—seriously. You guys are doing incredible work in medical education. It’s pretty amazing to think about how many physicians you’ve impacted.

Where can listeners find more of what you’re doing?

TO:
Go to medpreptogo.com. You’ll find both of our bios, a lot of our content, and resources there. That’s probably the best place to start.

MJ:
Awesome. Dr. Raj, Dr. O’Connell—thank you so much for your time today.

RD:
Thank you, Michael.

TO:
Thanks for having us—it’s been a great conversation.

RD:
This was fun—a blast. Thanks everyone for listening.

MJ:
Awesome. Thanks, y’all.

MJ:

You can catch The Podcast for Doctors (By Doctors) on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and all major platforms. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and subscribe. Next time you see a doctor, maybe prescribe this podcast. See you next time.

Check it out on Spotify, Apple, Amazon Music, and iHeart.

Have guest or topic suggestions?

Send us an email at [email protected].