Case Study Submission: Persistent Proximity Phenomenon (PPP)
For the sake of clarity, this post was never intended to be taken seriously, and any attempt to do so is entirely at the reader’s own risk.
Chief Complaint: My mentor is everywhere. Not aggressively. Just… consistently. Like gravity, or scrubs that fit almost right but not quite.
Draft ICD-10 Codes (open for validation):
- PPP.01 - Persistent Proximity Phenomenon, Mild (“Oh hello, there you are again”)
- PPP.02 - PPP, Moderate with Adjacent Hovering (Chart-In-Hand Subtype)
- PPP.03 - PPP, Severe, with Unexpected Elevator Co-Sightings
- PPP.89 - Other Specified Proximity Events (e.g., Mentor appears exactly where you were going before you knew you were going there)
- PPP.99 - PPP, Unspecified, but you’re still double-checking under your bed just to be safe
History of Present Illness: Symptoms began approximately X weeks ago following Mentor’s return from an unexplained leave (leave purpose unknown; demeanor suggests quiet introspection with subtle brooding, ICD-10: R45.81 - Brooding, Probably Harmless).
Since then, mentor appearances have multiplied at a rate that can only be described as “robust but courteous.”
Exhibits (subject to critique):
- Exhibit A: Hallway Quantum Entanglement (PPP.03)
- Walking briskly with purpose (to look competent). Turn corner. Mentor present. Nods exchanged. I re-route entirely, just to prove independence. Mentor later appears in new location. Nods exchanged again. Re-routing unsustainable.
-
Exhibit B: The Water Cooler Ambush (PPP.89)
- I hydrate (water only, career-preserving). Mentor appears, also hydrating. Zero conversation. Two adults silently drinking water in parallel, like observing introverts in their natural environment. I later wonder if that counted as collegial bonding. Jury still out.
-
Exhibit C: Desk-Side Drift (PPP.02)
- Writing discharge summary. Peripheral vision detects presence. Look up. Mentor adjacent, reviewing a chart. Not watching me, exactly, but close enough that my documentation quality involuntarily improves.
-
Exhibit D: Under-Bed Scan (PPP.99)
- Home, post-call. Mentally reviewing charts (as one does). Invasive thought: “Is he under my bed with feedback?” Checked once. Negative. Decided against repeating study. Low yield, low reimbursement.
- Exhibit E: Mentor: Kind of Lied? (PPP.01)
- New patient arrives. Mentor says, “You take this one, I’ve got three.” Cool. One minute later, he’s behind me. Watching? Hovering? Patient seems fine. Am I being supervised… or replaced? Unclear.
Assessment:
Mentor demonstrates High-Frequency Low-Intrusion Hovering (HFLIH). Hovering episodes associated with increased clinical output on my part, as well as mild, academically-notable awareness of Handsomeness Factor (HF +1, compartmentalized).
Brooding Index (BI) remains steady but non-threatening.
Mentor remains professional, kind, helpful, and somewhat confusing. Not due to actions, but due to sheer omnipresence and the small, professionally embarrassing possibility that I’m the only one noticing.
Differential Diagnosis:
- PPI (Perceived Proximity Inflation) - Am I actually just over-noticing? Unclear.
- SPM (Standard Proximity Mentorship) - Maybe this is textbook? Someone tell me.
- ECS (Excessive Clinical Support) - Hard to complain about, but cognitively interesting.
- PPP+HF (PPP with Handsomeness Factor Comorbidity) - Underreported, I suspect.
Plan:
1. Maintain Professional Nodding Protocol (PNP).
2. Avoid overcorrection (enthusiastic nodding looks alarming).
3. Continue Hydration. Water only. No reason to complicate variables.
4. Cease Under-Bed Inspections. Negative predictive value confirmed.
5. Peer Consultation (This Post).
- Best nodding-to-encounter ratio?
- How does one scientifically ignore handsomeness? Asking academically.
- Has anyone else treated PPP with long-term success?
- Am I alone in this, or do all departments have a ubiquitous but helpful brooding mentor subtype?
Prognosis:
Excellent. Functioning baseline-plus. Patient (me) demonstrates strong professional containment with intermittent curiosity flares. Will continue close observation (and casual hallway encounters).
Sample size limited (n=1). Further data collection recommended. Peer input welcome.
Grateful for your thoughts or just gentle reassurance that this is not an isolated phenomenon.
