Use of HIT to reduce diagnostic errors
Alan.Morris at IMAIL.ORG
Fri Aug 23 19:13:10 UTC 2013
Yes, we must deal with changing context and with ever-present cohort effects. A 20 year old today my differ from a 20 year old 30 years ago. This requires ongoing research and deliberation. What I believe this research commonly lacks is replicable methodology. I think we are all touch truths of a complex set of issues viewed from different perspectives
Have a nice day.
Alan H. Morris, M.D.
Professor of Medicine
Adjunct Prof. of Medical Informatics
University of Utah
Director of Research
Director Urban Central Region Blood Gas and Pulmonary Laboratories
Pulmonary/Critical Care Division
Sorenson Heart & Lung Center - 6th Floor
Intermountain Medical Center
5121 South Cottonwood Street
Murray, Utah 84157-7000, USA
Office Phone: 801-507-4603
Mobile Phone: 801-718-1283
e-mail: alan.morris at imail.org
e-mail: alanhmorris at gmail.com
From: Peggy Zuckerman <peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM<mailto:peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM>>
Reply-To: Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>>, Peggy Zuckerman <peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM<mailto:peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM>>
Date: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:23 PM
To: "IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>" <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Use of HIT to reduce diagnostic errors
"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.
Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
Moderator: Lorri Zipperer Lorri at ZPM1.com<mailto:Lorri at ZPM1.com>, Communication co-chair, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
To learn more about SIDM visit:
Save the date: Diagnostic Error in Medicine 2013. September 22-25, 2013 in Chicago, IL.
More information about the Test