• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Doctors Hate Science

Experience:
Feedback:
Accountability:
Training:
Awareness of alternatives:

You misunderstood what each of those factors represents. For example, feedback does not refer to observing what happens after a treatment is prescribed.

BTW, I defined 'diagnosis' for you. Could you answer my question please?

You didn't define 'diagnosis' in a way that was useful. I consider many diagnoses for each case and they can't all be right. Does that mean my diagnoses are mainly wrong and my error rate is high?

And if any physicians are feeling brave they can answer the follow-up:

Of the medical errors you have made, what proportion resulted in the death or permanent injury/disability of the patient?

None.

Linda
 
You misunderstood what each of those factors represents. For example, feedback does not refer to observing what happens after a treatment is prescribed.

Please tell me what you think each of the factors represent.

You didn't define 'diagnosis' in a way that was useful. I consider many diagnoses for each case and they can't all be right. Does that mean my diagnoses are mainly wrong and my error rate is high?

<snip>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagnosis

1. Medicine/Medical.

di⋅ag⋅no⋅sis

a. the process of determining by examination the nature and circumstances of a diseased condition.
b. the decision reached from such an examination. Abbreviation: Dx

I used "the decision reached from such an examination" as the definition of diagnosis.

If you are saying at the end of an examination the list of diseases you treat is greater than one then, excluding correctly identified comorbidities, your error rate is at least 50% by definition.

What definition of diagnosis do you prefer?
 
I think it's becoming abundantly clear that Ivor doesn't understand medicine very well... :(
Oh noes, not that again. He is a true believer in his beliefs. Now he will waste electrons, not that we need to read his response.
 
The AJoM had a whole supplement May last year on medical error. Here's what's suggested for patients:

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934308001563/fulltext

Patients

Patients obviously have the appropriate motivation to help reduce diagnostic errors. They are perfectly positioned to prevent, detect, and mollify many system-based as well as cognitive factors that detract from timely and accurate diagnosis. Properly educated, patients are ideal partners to help reduce the likelihood of error. For patients to act effectively in this capacity, however, requires that physicians orient them appropriately and reformulate, to some extent, certain aspects of the traditional relationship between themselves and their patients. Two new roles for patients to help reduce the chances for diagnostic error are proposed below.


Be Watchdogs for Cognitive Errors

Traditionally, physicians share their initial impressions with a new patient, but only to a limited extent. Sometimes the suspected diagnosis isn't explicitly mentioned, and the patient is simply told what tests to have done or what treatment will be used. Patients could serve an effective role in checking for cognitive errors if they were given more information, including explicit disclosure of their diagnosis, its probability, and instructions on what to expect if this is correct. They should be told what to watch for in the upcoming days, weeks, and months, and when and how to convey any discrepancies to the provider. If there is no clear diagnosis, this too should be conveyed. Patients prefer a diagnosis that is delivered with confidence and certainty, but an honest disclosure of uncertainty and the probabilistic nature of diagnosis is probably a better approach in the long run. In this framework, patients would be more comfortable asking questions such as “What else could this be?” Exploring other options is a powerful way to counteract our innate tendencies to narrowly restrict the context of a case or jump too quickly on the first diagnosis that seems to fit.

Be Watchdogs for System-related Errors

In a perfect world, all test results would be reliably communicated and reviewed, all care would be well coordinated, and all medical records would be available and accurate. Until then, the patient can play a valuable role in combating errors related to latent flaws in our healthcare systems and practices. Patients can and should function as back-ups in this regard. They should always be given their test results, progress notes, discharge summaries, and lists of their current medications. In the absence of reliable and comprehensive care coordination, there is no better person than the patient to make sure information flows appropriately between providers and sites of care.
 
Please tell me what you think each of the factors represent.

Wouldn't that be a waste of time?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagnosis

I used "the decision reached from such an examination" as the definition of diagnosis.

If you are saying at the end of an examination the list of diseases you treat is greater than one then, excluding correctly identified comorbidities, your error rate is at least 50% by definition.

Right. Which means that the number is really a measure of the average number of diagnoses on my differential.

What definition of diagnosis do you prefer?

The correct diagnosis was included in those diagnoses given serious consideration.

Linda
 
Toke,

It is likely not used more often because it not that specific (the study says that CRP indicated Bacterial infection, but if you look at what CRP is, it goes up with an immune response in general, so I think it misleading to state that it has a high specificity).
I remember this incident because I was so impressed that it was possible to tell bacterial infection in a few minutes.
That it doesn´t work that simple and certain explains why it is not used more often, and why overuse of antibiotics is a problem.

I recall it as a few minutes to get a result.
What expenses is justified to avoid overuse of antibiotics is a jugdement for the national health autorities, hope they get it right.

I have the impression that antibiotics in animal fodder is a bigger problem.
It translates from danish as "growth enchancers"
 
Wouldn't that be a waste of time?

I don't think so, but you are free to disagree.

Right. Which means that the number is really a measure of the average number of diagnoses on my differential.

Do you think this number could be useful?

The correct diagnosis was included in those diagnoses given serious consideration.

Linda

If you treat a patient for more than one disease and she gets better, how do you determine which disease she had?
 
Congratulations, skeptigirl, you have just exposed patient autonomy.

Maybe you should all give your patients as much information as possible.
It will surely kill off all this nonsense about patient autonomy.
I'm not sure I understand your reply here. I do give my patients as much information as possible. I'm saying that in reply some indicate they prefer less information.
 
Regarding unneccery procedures/drugs.
My country have a sensibel/strict policy on antibiotic. (except in animalfodder)

I once showed up at the doctor with something that could be either flu or an infection of throut/head cavities. A nurse took a small blood sample, and I was told there were no infection, and I could not get a presciption for antibiotics.

Is that a common test, using a small glass pipe of blood to see if there is bacteria infections?
It's possible the test was for a hematocrit and unrelated to the decision regarding the antibiotic. A routine crit is indicated for a number of reasons. It's common for patients to come away with a bit of mis-heard information in a clinical exam.
 
Last edited:
...

I have the impression that antibiotics in animal fodder is a bigger problem.
It translates from danish as "growth enchancers"
That's because the antibiotics are actually given because they result in larger animals. The drugs are not given for preventing specific infections.
 
I think seeing how the list changes size over time would be interesting.

It wouldn't. It's almost entirely dependent upon case-mix.

What fraction of your patients who get better do you send for autopsy?

Well, in a physician-centered model, feedback is more important than autonomy, so quite a few. Wiggling interferes with the gross examination, but this tends to be rectified by the time the heart is weighed.

Linda
 
kellyb:

I think you are struggling a bit to understand concepts that we already utilize, most of us effortlessly and with aplomb after years of practice, everyday... or you (and Ivor) are trying to conflate the notion of the "self-aggrandizing, unwavering" physician onto the entire profession. That's why I suggested that we discuss the issues separately.

To (briefly) answer a couple of your points...

This "patient-centered care" stuff is redundant, in that (again) all care is patient-centered. It is touchy-feely buzzword nonsense. I already described the ethical principles that guide our patient interaction, and they are all patient-centered. Nobody used the words "patient-centered" in either med school, residency or on the wards. They would get laughed at (i.e., just like we would never use the layman term "partial-birth abortion" in our professional endeavors).

While I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure "patient centered care" (particularly a style of communication, and emphasis on shared decision making) is actually a subject of interest in family medicine. You can even see it reflected in the obgyn guidelines the direct the AAFP vs the ACOG, for example.
Stuff like this:

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/data/3/4/378/DC1/1

From the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, increasing comfort with the relative safety of TOLAC and rising managed care pressures to control costs appeared to shift options for a woman with a single previous low transverse cesarean from “You must have a repeat cesarean,” to “You may have a trial of labor,” to ”You must have a trial of labor.”
In the early 1990s, concerned that choices for women were being inappropriately limited, the AAFP conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 292 VBAC studies.1,8 The AAFP meta-analysis showed that women who chose TOLAC had a symptomatic rupture rate that was 24 per 10,000 (0.24%) higher than in women who chose ERCD. While overall maternal outcomes were slightly better with TOLAC, infant outcomes were slightly better with ERCD. The outcomes were thought to be sufficiently similar that the AAFP concluded that the preferences of the woman should determine the mode of delivery.

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/378

The clinical practice guideline published as a supplement to the online version of this issue of the Annals of Family Medicine (http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/378/DC1) combines elements both unique and ubiquitous. The guideline, "Trial of Labor After Cesarean (TOLAC), Formerly Trial of Labor Versus Elective Repeat Cesarean Section for the Woman With a Previous Cesarean Section," is unique in that it reflects family medicine’s patient-centered approach to care. At the same time, it embodies the AAFP’s dedication to promoting evidence-based medical practice—a hallmark of all clinical practice guidelines the Academy produces.

My perception might be colored by anecdotes based in coincidence, but I think the AAFP's "uniqueness" in this regard is real, and not just them trying to one up the ACOG or something.

"Patient centered care" is also a political buzzword, in the sense that it's used to promote the IOM's grandiose plan to fix the American healthcare crisis through the "medical home" idea.


"Family-centered care" is something completely different, and a model (currently being pushed in the ICUs) that I think has a noble and admirable purpose, but that I don't necessarily always agree with. In many cases, this can cause sensory and informational overload for the family, along with added emotional stress, and can even result in interference with effective care. I've seen it firsthand.

Ethical principles which guide our care include doing no harm, trying to do what's "right" and best for the patient, allowing the patient (when possible) to decide what's best for him/herself, and trying to use all of the resources at our disposal in a manner that is fair and equitable. In other words, nonmalficience, beneficence, autonomy, and justice.

But, bottom line, this is a decidedly human endeavor, people are not machines where the problem can always be simply isolated and fixed, and to expect perfection - including perfect outcomes - every single time is unrealistic. As a clinician, I try to continuously gage the level of "what my patient needs" and give it to them, in whichever form that may manifest itself. And, that is more art than it is science.

~Dr. Imago


Right. And the way the objectives of nonmalficience, beneficence, autonomy, and justice work out best will vary greatly from one healthcare setting to the next.
 
That's because the antibiotics are actually given because they result in larger animals. The drugs are not given for preventing specific infections.

Yes I know.
Sorry if I was unclear, but the problem I see is multiresistant salmonella in chicken and pork meat. (seems like the perfect way to breed them, (the bugs))
Too much antibiotic for humans gives other problems.
 
On the subject of "patient centered care" as a political buzzword used to promote the "medical home"....

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/...nationaldemonstrationproject/transformed.html

Washington, D.C. – In a bold step, family medicine today took the lead in the effort to transform the way primary care is delivered in our country.

TransforMED, an $8 million practice redesign initiative of the American Academy of Family Physicians, today announced the launch of a demonstration project that will test a new and enhanced model of patient care in 36 medical practices across the nation.

The 36 family medicine practices, selected from an applicant pool of more than 300, will undergo transformative change as participants in a first-of-its-kind “proof-of-concept” project. The project aims to determine empirically whether this model of care – the TransforMED Model of Care – can deliver on its promise to improve patient care, patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction and practice performance.

Here are a couple of the practices they selected:

http://www.fmgwmed.com/Mission.php

http://www.harborofhealth.com/services/acupuncture.htm
 
Last edited:
I remember this incident because I was so impressed that it was possible to tell bacterial infection in a few minutes.
That it doesn´t work that simple and certain explains why it is not used more often, and why overuse of antibiotics is a problem.

I recall it as a few minutes to get a result.
What expenses is justified to avoid overuse of antibiotics is a jugdement for the national health autorities, hope they get it right.

I have the impression that antibiotics in animal fodder is a bigger problem.
It translates from danish as "growth enchancers"

I suspect, in the end, as you said, the test was perhaps the tipping point, that made he/she favor antibiotics or not.

The expense of a test is, in part, the domain of health authorities, but when those authorities decide not to pay for it, and throw the cost on to the physician, then it becomes murky. The problem is not the test usually, but the logistics. The courier, for instance, to get the specimen to the lab.

To be honest, I do not think CRP for Upper Respiratory Tracy Infections will catch on. Blood tests cost money, and with the frequency that URTIs present to GP clinics, it might quickly bankrupt the provincial Health Care budget.

TAM:)
 

Back
Top Bottom