Use of HIT to reduce diagnostic errors

Peggy Zuckerman peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM
Fri Aug 23 18:23:15 UTC 2013


*"The relevant technology is changing almost by the day so a paper from
2000 that reflects a study carried out say 2 years earlier is now really
history,"  *says Jason re diagnostic HIT.  That is no doubt true.
Moreover, it may be that this is true for medications, treatments and
non-HIT diagnosis as well.

Not only is it likely that the most up-to-date doctor will be several years
behind, the reality is that only about 50% of patients receive the standard
of care treatments, as per the IOM.  Add to that the subsequent failure of
50% of those same patients not being "compliant" with those treatments.

Consider the possibility that some percentage of those patients realize
that they may be poorly diagnosed and thereby less likely to respond to
those treatments.  Consider also that the patient, even properly diagnosed,
might be aware that his doctor has recommended an older, less reliable
treatment.  Is there any wonder that many patients come to distrust the
medical system, and turn to a mix of other resources, many unreliable.

Accuracy or at least a willingness to reconsider that initial diagnosis and
real desire to involve the patient in the diagnosis may lead to a
willingness by the patient to follow the doctor's recommendations.


<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT8ufXQs1Mc>
>







To unsubscribe from the IMPROVEDX list, click the following link:<br>
<a href="http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1" target="_blank">http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1</a>
</p>

HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20130823/3f5f9d8f/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list