Another argument for patient's access to their test results

Rob Bell rmsbell200 at YAHOO.COM
Mon Apr 21 17:55:44 UTC 2014


So what does it matter if the radiology tech fakes the results?!

Rob Bell

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 21, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Peggy Zuckerman <peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Quite similar to this is the very frequent situation in which a patient is told re the blood labs, "We'll call if there is a problem; otherwise, don't expect to hear from us".  Stats indicate that some 15-18% of labs with abnormalities are not reported to patients.  With the millions of tests done, that percentage reveals a tremendous weakness in our system, and another reason to be pro-active in getting and reviewing one's own labs.
> 
> Moreover, that statistic does not indicate whether the reported problems suggested by the abnormal labs ever trigger the proper follow up, not to mention are used efficiently in the diagnosis.  Case in point:  a PSA test is higher than normal, and patient is told to see specialist.  Is there a formal referral, are the abnormal labs provided to the new specialist, are new labs prescibed, does the GP inform expect and prepare for a response from the specialist?  No stats on any of that, which are certainly "delayed diagnosis" incidents.
> 
> If these labs and the value of them were EXPLAINED to patients, so that they understood the importance of the abnormal reading, more appropriate follow up by both patient and doctor would happen.
> 
> Peggy Zuckerman
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Graber, Mark <Mark.Graber at va.gov> wrote:
>> In a very disturbing story this week, a radiology tech was accused of notifying 1000+ women that their mammagrams were normal, although she didn't know this to be true, and some in fact were not.  http://www.today.com/video/today/54989210#54989210
>> 
>> Its my understanding that all women are supposed to receive a copy of their test result, and its not exactly clear from this report if the tech just gave women a verbal 'ok', or if she actually altered the radiologist's report.  This is a class of diagnostic error I've never encountered before, but I'm hoping that the directly-mailed results mitigated the tech's false assurances.  If anyone has access to more facts on this case, I'd be interested to hear them.
>> 
>> 
>> Mark L Graber, MD FACP
>> Senior Fellow, RTI International
>> Professor Emeritus, SUNY Stony Brook School of Medicine
>> Founder and President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine
>> MARK.GRABER at IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Moderator: Lorri Zipperer 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>
>> </p>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peggy Zuckerman
> www.peggyRCC.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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, Communication co-chair, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/








HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20140421/c99cb6d9/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list