Ideas on improving rates of missed/delayed diagnoses in PCP type visits.

Bob Latino blatino at RELIABILITY.COM
Mon Jan 20 18:30:26 UTC 2014


Thank you David.  I agree with everything you said and logically laid out below.

Do you know if there are any studies that would separate diagnosis error related to acute (%) versus chronic diseases (%)?

To me, the key in any of these situations is a mutual respect between the physician and the patient, and a willingness to 'listen' (not just hear) to what each is saying and why they are saying it.  If a patient lays out information they have collected in some fashion (coupled with unique knowledge of their past history), a physician should acknowledge the effort (as the patient took time to research it), review the information and separate the facts from conventional wisdom in a lay fashion.  From this the patient will understand if some of their information is not relevant and why.

Conversely, the patient should recognize and respect that the physician sees thousands of patients a year and has a perspective that the patient absolutely cannot.  Forcing a physician to come to a patient's 'web' diagnosis would be counterproductive to the shared goal.  This is not to mention the liability concerns associated with such a dangerous behavior.

In the end, the patient just wants to be heard and listened to as a unique individual unlike any other.  They don't want to be treated like a number in a large population.

Thank you once again David.  I find it of extreme value that I can relate such concerns as a patient to those on the other side of the coin that have to deal with people like me.  Understanding each other's perspective will give us unity in purpose.

Robert (Bob) J. Latino
CEO
Reliability Center, Inc., P.O. Box 1421, Hopewell, VA  23860
(O) 804.458.0645  (F) 804.452.2119
blatino at reliability.com<mailto:blatino at reliability.com> l http://www.reliability.com<http://www.reliability.com/>

From: David Gordon, M.D. [mailto:davidc.gordon at duke.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine; Bob Latino
Subject: RE: [IMPROVEDX] Ideas on improving rates of missed/delayed diagnoses in PCP type visits.


Bob,



Sometimes I do find it helpful when a patient comes in and says " I am worried that I might have ...." It allows me to focus the visit and address specific concerns.



However, in general, I wonder if it is best for patients with acute complaints to provide a description of their symptoms in the beginning of the visit and hold off on their own interpretation of the symptoms until the end. I could see the potential for the introduction of bias if physicians aren't given space to independently come up with their own conclusion without any preconceived notions. If it aligns with what the patient has found, then it adds credence. If the patient came up with a different diagnosis, then I think it is great to ask at the end "well, what about...?" It can serve as cognitive forcing tool to enforce broad differential diagnoses.



This may be different for chronic complaints or symptoms that have defied diagnosis despite repeat health care visits. In that scenario, I do believe that patients pursuing their own research and forcing physicians to consider diagnoses that haven't been considered or reconsider diagnoses perhaps too easily dismissed could be important. The danger is over-diagnosis as there is so much overlap of symptoms across disease processes. I could see some similarity with medical student's disease or medical student disorder in which medical students start identifying with or worrying they have the diseases they are reading about. I think this is something people can be vulnerable to and have to be careful about in making internet-diagnoses.



-David






David Gordon, MD
Associate Professor
Undergraduate Education Director
Division of Emergency Medicine
Duke University

The information in this electronic mail is sensitive, protected information intended only for the addressee(s). Any other person, including anyone who believes he/she might have received it due to an addressing error, is requested to notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail, and to delete it without further reading or retention. The information is not to be forwarded to or shared unless in compliance with Duke Medicine policies on confidentiality and/or with the approval of the sender.
________________________________
From: Bob Latino [blatino at RELIABILITY.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:34 AM
To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Ideas on improving rates of missed/delayed diagnoses in PCP type visits.

Great discussion.



I would think that both parties should have the shared goal of a positive outcome.



I know when someone in my family has certain symptoms that are outside the norm for a typical cold (as one example), I use an app called 'iTriage' (https://www.itriagehealth.com/).  I often wondered if physicians laugh at the credibility of such information resources made easily available to patients.



I realize this is not equivalent to any formal diagnosis from an experienced physician, but it may give me ideas about a range of possible diagnoses and interim actions I can take right now. Would it seem logical that a group of medical professionals had to develop the cause-and-effect logic to put this type of app together, based on experience from a broad base of patient interactions/outcomes.



What do doctors feel about the typical layman coming into their PCP with information from such sources?



As Victoria states, do they discount it outright because the patient is 'playing doctor' using websites? Do they explore the potential validity of the information and then provide reasoning as to why it may not be applicable in their case? If the information is accurate, do they acknowledge so even though it came from 'the web'?



Does the Pareto Principle apply here where 20% of the typical diagnoses cover 80% of the typical symptoms that patient's present with (which is what I expect an approach like iTriage is trying to capture)?



The mix on this forum is what provides the greatest value to me in understanding effective decision-making on behalf of the physician as well as the patient.



Robert (Bob) J. Latino

CEO

Reliability Center, Inc., P.O. Box 1421, Hopewell, VA  23860

(O) 804.458.0645  (F) 804.452.2119

blatino at reliability.com<mailto:blatino at reliability.com> l http://www.reliability.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Nicholls [mailto:nichollsvi2 at GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM
To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Ideas on improving rates of missed/delayed diagnoses in PCP type visits.



This was another great post John.



Here is a question for doctors: if someone comes in and says I have symptoms X, Y, and Z, and think I have diagnosis A, would the clinician be open to think about the criteria for the diagnosis and say, it is possible but have you explored diagnosis B or C? That would also fit your symptoms. Lets see what other symptoms you have to narrow it down.



This would help in having confidence in the doctor, less reliance on Oprah type diagnoses, and doesn't appear to take a lot of time.



What about something like that? Question for the professionals on here.



Victoria





On 1/19/2014 10:19 PM, John Brush wrote:

>     I think that the emphasis on "patient-centeredness" has largely focused on therapeutic decisions, and hasn't adequately addressed diagnostic decision making. There needs to be more engagement. There are problems on both sides of the conversation. Many patients seem to seek the illusion of certainty. Some are biased by dread or wishful thinking. It is hard to be objective when you are the patient. All doctors are patients at some point, and know that they aren't very good at diagnosing themselves.

>     I think it is a good idea to inform patients about the inherent uncertainty in diagnosis. I often ask patients "what do you think it is?" Sometimes I get a helpful answer. But usually, it least the question serves to get the patient thinking about the imprecision of testing and the difficulty in establishing a firm diagnosis.

>     I think there is one other lurking problem. The malpractice environment has a priming effect that can cause doctors to view patients and their families as potential litigants. Doctors can get defensive when patients ask questions about the diagnosis. Doctors need to recognize that this is usually irrational and they need to work on getting past that priming effect. Also, unfortunately, doctors visits are often too time-pressured to have a decent in-depth conversation.

>     There are a lot of barriers that inhibit getting patients better involved. It would be good to discuss the barriers and bring these impediments to doctor's attention. I think the vast majority of doctors would like to learn how to better engage patients in diagnostic reasoning. I think helpful feedback and suggestions would be welcomed by virtually all physicians.

> John

>



To unsubscribe from the IMPROVEDX:

mail to:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG

or click the following link: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>



Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>



For additional information and subscription commands, visit:

http://www.lsoft.com/resources/faq.asp#4A






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 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<http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1%3c/a>>

</p>



________________________________

Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>

To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
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:
http://www.improvediagnosis.org/








HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20140120/81cc552e/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list