Another look at Questions

Leonard Berlin lberlin at LIVE.COM
Sat Jan 9 22:11:43 UTC 2016





 I also fully agree with Peggy, and Steve. For the past 15 years I have advocated, in speeches and in radiology articles, that copies of reports of radiology exams (at least those done on outpatients)  be sent to the patients as well as to the referring physician, just as mammogram reports are sent.  In fact legislation requiring this has been introduced in both the PA and NJ state legislatures, but they were opposed by the local radiology societies and never went anywhere.  A shame.  Most radiologists are not in favor of it, although some day it will happen. And now, a private note to Steve: yes, it has been a long time, and I hope our paths cross in the near future.  Up until about 2-3 years ago I'd bump into your dad and mom at a social event or restaurant, but not recently.  I do hope they are doing well, and please give them my regards. Until the day I pass from this world (assuming I don't fail mentally before then), I will always have very fondest of  memories of Fred Lane--attorney, orator, actor, comic, magician, (and expert witness at a trial in 1976, which you may remember if you were old enough), and just an all-round gentleman and mensch.Warm regards,, LennyPDate: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:14:14 +0000
From: Stevelane at LANE-LANE.COM
Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Another look at Questions
To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG






I couldn't agree more with Peggy. As an attorney representing patients in medical negligence cases, a common theme to virtually all successful cases has been in a lack of communications. I've never understood the basis for the "Your doctor will tell you"
 response that is the rule when patients ask for their test results. Surely, giving the results to the patient can't cause any harm, and does bring another possibility for catching a bad thing before it becomes catastrophic. I have no illusion that all patients
 will understand their reports. But if they're placed in a position to ask someone to explain the results, aren't they better off? 



On a social note, I'd like to shout out to Lenny, whom I haven't seen in too long!



Sent from my iPhone






Steve




Please respond to:
Stephen I. Lane

Partner

<image001.png>

230 W. Monroe  St.,  Suite 1900 

Chicago, Illinois      60606-4710 



Office:   (312) 332-1400

Facsimile: (312) 899-8003

Mobile: (847) 736-7769

stevelane at lane-lane.com



Past Member of Board of Directors and Past Chair of the Plaintiff and Consumer Institute of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms
 
Lane & Lane, LLC, a family of trial attorneys dedicated to protecting the rights of those who have been injured through the fault of others. 
 
For more information about our firm, please visit our website at www.lane-lane.com.







On Jan 9, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Peggy Zuckerman <peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM> wrote:







I am a patient who is painfully aware of the number of radiology reports which reference meaningful problems not communicated to the patient, which automatically constitutes a misdiagnosis or error in diagnosis. 
 In the recent IOM report, the failure to communicate a diagnosis to a patient constitutes a misdiagnosis in itself.



This situation can arise from the physician readsthe report only to affirm his suspected diagnosis, and with that being found or not being found, fails to read the entire report.  For example, suspecting a
 broken rib to explain a nagging pain, and not finding that, the physician may never read that there is a mass on the kidney. With the pressure to limit CTs, the unreported mass will likely not be imaged again for a year or more. The disaster that results from
 this error is obvious, and sadly, not uncommon with rarer diseases diagnosed incidentally, thanks to imaging done for other purposes.



Whereas Dr. Berlin notes that the clinician has the patient.  If the radiologist could rightly fulfill his obligation to the patient, his report would go simultaneously to the patient.  Patients will read the
 entire report, despite the difficulty they present.  No phrase which includes "mass" or "lesion" will go unnoted to the patient, and as a minimum will open a conversation between patient and clinician.  Naturally, the current efforts by the radiology societies
 will make the reports more easily read will be welcome to patients and physicians alike.



Rarely is it easy to measure the value of finding a tumor earlier than later, or of the cost of treatment given for the wrong disease. Certainly it is possible to determine if a patient has received a report
 with critical findings by asking the patient, even in a retrospective study. Patients have been 'taught' not to call the doctor's office for a simple blood test and to wait for a call with results, but are not taught that about 15% of problematic tests are
 not reported.  If there is a similar percentage as to radiology reports, this is a situation quickly corrected.



Send the report to the patient directly.  "Nothing about me without me."



Sincerely,
Peggy Zuckerman








Peggy Zuckerman

www.peggyRCC.com









On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Leonard Berlin 
<lberlin at live.com> wrote:



As a radiologist, I'd like to comment briefly on radiologic errors, which admittedly can be problematic.  It is the job of our radiology societies  to  actively work to reduce error rates, and they are trying. 


 

But I'd like add the following: the radiologist has the images, and the clinician has the patient; establishing a diagnosis requires collaboration of both (not to mention results of lab and other tests).  If a clinician receive a radiology report that somehow
 doesn't make sense or fit into the clinician's pre-imaging DD, the clinician should not automatically accept the report.  Call the radiologist and say that somehow the imaging interpretation doesn't seem to fit: ask the rad to take another look at the images
 keeping in mind  the clinician's doubt. And/or, ask the radiologist to show it to one of his colleagues for a second opinion.   This is certainly not a solution to the overall problem of radiologic errors, but on the other hand every now and then such collaboration
 will mitigate an error before it harms the patient  and result in a correct diagnosis.

 

Sadly, in this day and age, radiologists don't communicate with ordering physicians as much as they did in the past, and as much as they should today.  That is unfortunate and a shame, but it is a fact.  But in the interest of the patient, there's no doubt
 that two (or sometimes even three) heads are better than one.

 

 

Lenny Berlin, MD, FACR

Skokie, IL

 



Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:53:37 -0800

From: Michael.H.Kanter at KP.ORG

Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Another look at Questions

To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG





In terms of a list of Do's and Dont's this could help.  I think the challenge will be to find Do's and Dont's that are simple enough to describe but at the same time can meaningfully reduce errors.    It is worth exploring though.
   



Michael Kanter, M.D., CPPS

Regional Medical Director of Quality & Clinical Analysis

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

(626) 405-5722 (tie line 8+335)

THRIVE By Getting Regular Exercise



NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If
 you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you.









From:        robert bell <0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>


To:        IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG


Date:        01/07/2016 07:21 AM


Subject:        Re: [IMPROVEDX] Another look at Questions









Dear Michael, 



Some good points. 



One of my thoughts is that we have the cart before the horse in first focussing on Errors in Diagnosis when something like 60% of errors are run of the mill standard errors. These such as communication problems that are associated with simple
 things like orders, wrong medications, computer problems, fatigue, education lack, and language problems. If we are truly interested in reducing the death toll and morbidity of Errors in Medicine as a whole should we not go for the jugular, identify the biggest
 problems, and tackle these collaboratively so that we get a significant reduction in the figures.




And that brings up a big issue that first we need to have figures to be able to say if we are making progress. And think of the revolution that will create when we get into litigation and confidentiality discussions. That big question seems to
 be, can we do anything meaningful in either Standard and Diagnostic Errors without good data?




I take your point that a large percentage of lab and x-ray reporting is related to diagnosis, but it is also related to monitoring over time - INRs, mammograms, and bone density come to mind. I do not know the monitoring percentage but would
 guess it is 10 - 20% of the total.  As these two specialty areas are so important to the whole of medicine it would seem that the consortium of specialty societies (that incidentally should have patient representation) could triage the main problems in these
 areas and collaboratively work on improving them. From what I hear the electronic patient record would be something that should be looked at immediately. If you do not look after the important basic foundations of medicine and the standard 60% of all errors
 that accounts for the biggest mortality I believe that you are never going to effectively make inroads into the Diagnostic Error piece of the pie.




I am sure that with the benefits of technology there are many opportunities to reduce/improve the number of errors in both Radiology and Laboratory pathology.  And yes, you are correct radiology is likely to help make accurate diagnoses sooner
 than an impression made with a stethoscope (incidentally I have often wondered how accurate, in certain hands, the stethoscope is and have questioned what is its contribution to errors - perhaps it should be triaged close to the top!). But the technological
 advances in radiology would place it in the forefront for improvement of error rates.




So this does not mean that we should not be focussing on Diagnostic Errors as we move forward, but strongly believe we should
first be making sure that the main foundations to diagnosis are as solid as they can be.




Yes, specialists with telemedicine links to help in the review process would be a wonderful idea to help with error rates.  And also a wonderful teaching tool to both specialist and radiologist. Could well be tried out with a small study if it
 is not already being done. 



One of my thoughts is that in medicine that is structured hierarchically we may not be asking enough questions. Particularly as technology and collaboration is slowly eroding that hierarchy. Questions are often less intrusive and more than anything
 are creative in group settings. Questions should be encouraged in all meetings if we wish to make quick progress.




Do you think that Do and Don’t lists are of value? 



Thank you Michael, 



Rob Bell 





On Jan 6, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Michael.H.Kanter at KP.ORG wrote:




interesting thoughts that you wrote below that are very thought provoking as usual.  Maybe I misunderstood but  you make the statement that " I felt that if there is a significant error rate in radiology
 reports and laboratory tests that this should be addressed first."


I personally consider error rates in radiology reports and lab tests within the scope of diagnostic errors and not sure why we would not address this quickly.   I do not believe that anywhere in the IOM report did they suggest otherwise.    In fact, radiology
 report errors really fall into the class of diagnostic errors related to visual errors and also occur in pathology reports and other areas of diagnosis where the diagnosis is made by visual interpretation of an image.  We recently published a method on how
 to decrease these for interpretation of retinal photos   


Visual errors that are based on stored images (as opposed to looking at a skin lesion of a patient) have some advantages in terms of study and performance improvement including


1) they are often stored in data systems for easy retrieval and identification


2)  they can be retrospectively reviewed 

3)  one can determine the incidence of diagnosing a disease if the image or image results are stored in a data system and use the variation in diagnosis as a measure of diagnostic error/variability as was done in the attached paper.


4)  Diagnosis based on visual images can be more easily studied because  the variable of data acquisition can be controlled better (that is everyone can look at the same image/data) which is very different than a physical exam or patient history.




My point is that it may be simpler to study errors due to visual interpretation of images than other types of diagnostic errors and this is something to consider addressing sooner rather than later.




I really like the idea of specialists societies getting involved in diagnostic errors.    Specialists  are likely to see such errors in their practice when referals are sent too late or with the wrong diagnosis.  




Michael Kanter, M.D., CPPS

Regional Medical Director of Quality & Clinical Analysis

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

(626) 405-5722 (tie line 8+335)

THRIVE By Getting Regular Exercise



NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
 the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you.









From:        robert bell <0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>


To:        IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG


Date:        01/02/2016 04:03 PM


Subject:        [IMPROVEDX] Another look at Questions










Dear All, 



I would like to thank all the people on this list who kindly responded to my questions a few weeks back.




Since asking those questions I became aware that questions may be creative.




Does it follow then that statements are less creative. I then thought how does that come about?




A question I thought, stimulates listeners and readers to think of various solutions. So from one question you might get many solutions. With statements you would be more relying on the creativity of the writer presenting his or her various ideas and solutions.
 And these all together may not be great in number. 



With regard to the medical profession as a whole and people in positions of power in the healthcare industry who can effect change, one can ask do they ask fewer questions for fear of being considered less knowledgeable? So, if this is true, almost by definition,
 if questions are creative, such decision makers are less likely to be broadly creative, at least initially? There are obvious exceptions. So a  question might be how to better take advantage of the
crowd think? 



This all makes an assumption that most things in medicine are complex and that many solutions to an issue may be necessary to arrive at a good solution.




The IOM has issued its statement/report on diagnostic errors and there are some good suggestions. I was pleased to see teamwork mentioned first in their solution. Which essentially is an extension of
crowd think. 



But the big question is where do we go from here? As you all know I would have preferred standard medical errors to be approached first before diagnostic errors. For example, I felt that if there is a significant error rate in radiology reports and laboratory
 tests that this should be addressed first. But assuming that we may have the cart before the horse, and I am not completely sure about that, what questions could be asked of the established consortium of speciality societies?




Over and above the big structural solutions, what comes to mind for me is that some of these societies have issued Do and Don’t lists for their members.




So my new question is, could those lists be looked at and the idea extended to all the specialty societies with the emphasis on reducing diagnostic error?




Also, with any statement(s) would it be good to consider asking some questions at the end to stimulate thought?




The best for 2016, 



Robert M. Bell, M.D., Ph.C. 


















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:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:

http://www.improvediagnosis.org/




<OSLIRetinaPDF.pdf> 



Robert M. Bell, M.D., Ph.C. 

P.O. Box 3668 

West Sedona, AZ  86340-3668 

USA 
















Address messages to: 
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



Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX




Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:

http://www.improvediagnosis.org/











Address messages to: 
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



Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX



Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:

http://www.improvediagnosis.org/






























Address messages to: 
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



Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX 

Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:

http://www.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



Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX




Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:

http://www.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



Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX



Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine



To learn more about SIDM visit:
http://www.improvediagnosis.org/

 		 	   		  





Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20160109/fdaef05e/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list