Have you ever heard of a DO who is also a neurologist? For some reason I find this a strange combo. He is on my insurance provider list but somehow I am skeptical. I am trying to check him out but can't find anything online. A lot of the dr's are not listed with AMA. I am trying to get info thru the state licenisng board. Your opinions please. Thanks.

Would it be a Dr. of ophthalmology (in depth study and treatment of the eye) and a Neurologist as well?

I had a Neuro-Opthalmologist when I needed a consultant who was had the training to examine the problem I had with a potential with my optic nerve and a tumor entangled in it. They have more training than a neurologist (these that I am talking about)

--Travis

A DO can go into any field just as an MD however, I would myself never go to one. I'm just more traditional.

this year after my surgery and losing my left eye upper quadrant vision, I saw a DO who was also a neurologist at my hospital, but he focused more on the vision patients then Neuro, so I know where ur coming from. I thought he was great as a DO but never seen him again, and not for neuro purposes. Search around

I believe he is an Osteopath.

:) Yeah, DOs are doctors of osteopathy, and include more emphasis on the whole body, as well as emotional aspects. I've had great DOs. They go to a lot of the same medical schooling as MDs go to, but then specialize in osteopathy- no reason to not have another specialty in neuro.

Labels are a hinderance, and yet necessary to let patients know who's taking care of them at all levels of medical care- inpatient and outpatient.:)

I've had wonderful nurse practitioners, who actually were more helpful than an MD....same with physicians' assistants. I've seen nursing assistants who were more in tune with patients than LPN/LVNs or RNs.....I worked in the medical field before becoming disabled 3 1/2 years ago (so I remember what it's like; and now have experience from the other side of the bed ;)- can't identify what sort due to board rules, but in my humble opinion, labels don't make someone better or worse than another practioner on the same educational level (and some with less standard education have better patient understanding- which, with the right person 'over' them, can be a great team together, and asset to patient care).

I wouldn't hesitate to see a DO (and have). They're just more wholistic. I've had patient care technicans (nursing assistant with more training in drawing blood, doing EKGs, blood sugars, taking out IVs, etc) who were better than the old RN I'd had for the day (needed to retire and go knit somewhere, and leave patients alone.....lousy nurse, half deaf and gnarly mood both times I had her on 2 different admissions- not just a bad day once:)). The nurse basically gave meds and did a quick assesment, which was required for Medicare and hospital accreditation reasons, but not very complete from where I used to work. Some RNs were really good, some were ok.....but it all comes back to 'labels'..... If the person knows what they're doing, forget the label....look for the diploma, check out the school online, and see how the school rates.
:confused:

In many places, doctors of any sort are hard to get and keep....DOs are still doctors- just chose to go a more wholistic route than stick JUST with the science at the expense of the whole patient.....they still know the science, but include other options in their normal practice if the patient wants to go with that (accupuncture, massage, homeopathy, etc). Tradiditonal MDs don't usually think along those lines. You get more options with DOs, and if they have the papers to validate their specialty, I see no reason to avoid them :)