2nd Opinions

HM Epstein hmepstein at GMAIL.COM
Tue Mar 5 16:26:11 UTC 2019


Io:
This study about the Human Diagnosis Project was just released. It reviews the accuracy of the differential diagnosis when a group is reviewing it versus an individual physician. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2726709?

Hope it’s of help. 

Best,
Helene

       
Website Twitter LinkedIn​ Facebook

On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Peggy Zuckerman <peggyzuckerman at gmail.com> wrote:

Taking a slightly different tack to the discussion, I would suggest that there is often great value in the cancer world of asking for a second opinion read of the pathology and of the radiographic findings.  In the increasingly complex world of cancers and their molecularly characterized subtypes--not visible under the microscope for the most part--there is great value in having a very specialized pathologist read those slides.  The same is true of the review of CT scans, not only as to the findings from those particular scans, but in terms of whether that type of imaging ordered by the physician is the best imaging type.  Extending that into the issue of genomic testing, there is certainly value in the 'second opinion' of WHICH test should be used, as that is also challenge.

At least in cancer patients, the diagnosis that goes beyond the microscope and into the genomic world, can dramatically alter the treatment to be recommended.  And when patients are on a surveillance regimen, it is the radiologist and the pathologist who are the essential diagnosticians.

Peggy
Peggy Zuckerman
www.peggyRCC.com


> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:40 PM David Newman-Toker <toker at jhu.edu> wrote:
> I suspect there are two different sorts of effects here:
> 
> “Equivalent expertise” second opinions
> “Different expertise” second opinions
>  
> 
> The “equivalent expertise” effect assumes that the two providers are of the same type with roughly equivalent training, experience, and average error rates for the particular case/diagnosis in question. If there is some inter-observer variability (i.e., not every provider uniformly misses exactly the same cases/diagnoses all the time), then each incremental read by another similar provider will, on average, produce some incremental benefit, as Mark suggests. If these inter-observer variations truly amount to “random” error (rather than specific observer bias) with respect to the case, then even the same observer at two different time points might suffice (e.g., a re-read by the same radiologist a few days later, unbeknownst to the radiologist). There will be diminishing marginal utility of each successive (second, third, fourth, … ) opinion, and the value of the (first) second opinion will be greatest. Overall, these effects on improving diagnosis are likely to be real but usually modest, unless the error rates for typical providers for this sort of case are very high (e.g., as in the Herzog study, attached).
> 
>  
> 
> The “different expertise” effect assumes that the two providers are of different type, training, or experience. They are presumed therefore to have different overall average error rates for the case in question. Generally one would be seeking a second opinion from a provider (or group of providers) believed to have greater (rather than lesser) expertise. Every specialty consultation from a general care provider is intended to be a second opinion of this type. Likewise, so are academic second opinions after referral from a community hospital (e.g., sending a patient to a cancer center for a multi-disciplinary case review for diagnosis or staging after an initial determination by a community oncologist). These effects on improving diagnosis are probably fairly profound and positive, if the referral is to the correct provider type (e.g., when a patient who can hear their eyeballs move [that turns out to be due to superior canal dehiscence syndrome] is sent to a neuro-otologist). The impact of referral might actually be negative, however, if the referral is to an incorrect provider (e.g., when the same patient is sent to a psychiatrist).
> 
>  
> 
> David
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> David E. Newman-Toker, MD PhD
> 
> Professor of Neurology, Ophthalmology, & Otolaryngology
> 
> Director, Division of Neuro-Visual & Vestibular Disorders
> 
> Director, Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence
> 
> Core Faculty, Brain Injury OutcomeS (BIOS) Clinical Trials Unit
> 
> President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
>  
> 
> Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
> Johns Hopkins Hospital; Pathology Building 2-221
> 
> 600 North Wolfe Street; Baltimore, MD 21287-6921
> 
>  
> 
> Administrator: Myriha Wrencher 410-361-7981; mmontg20 at jhmi.edu
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email is intended for the confidential use of the above named recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at the number set forth above and destroy this email message. Thank you.
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mark Graber <Mark.Graber at IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG> 
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 8:28 PM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] 2nd Opinions
> 
>  
> 
> YES YES YES  - Fresh eyes catch mistakes.  Obtaining a second opinion may be one of the most effective interventions we have to address diagnostic error.  Second opinions have been extensively studied in radiology and pathology, including some studies that included longer-term follow-up to see if the second opinion was actually correct.  There IS a finite error rate with the second opinion as well, but by combining the two your odds of getting the correct answer clearly improve.  A large number of diagnoses change with a second opinion in general medicine too – see the attached review and article.  The Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and many others have been providing this kind of service for years – the Mayo cites a 20% rate of changing diagnosis, which is very much in line with our literature review and study of the second opinions provided by “Best Doctors”.
> 
>  
> 
> There may also be value in the ‘STOP AND THINK’ approach – ie getting a second opinion from yourself ;<)   No data on that option yet, but it seems plausible.
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
>  
> 
> Mark L Graber MD FACP
> 
> Chief Medical Officer; Founder and President Emeritus, SIDM
> 
> Professor Emeritus, Stony Brook University, NY
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> “This is a second opinion. At first I thought you had something else”.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Io Dolka <iodolka at GMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Listserv ImproveDx <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>, Io Dolka <iodolka at GMAIL.COM>
> Date: Monday, March 4, 2019 at 4:20 PM
> To: Listserv ImproveDx <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
> Subject: [IMPROVEDX] 2nd Opinions
> 
>  
> 
> Dear SIDM friends and colleagues,
> 
>  
> 
> Would you have any tips, advice or pointers regarding the issue of 2nd opinions? 
> 
>  
> 
> I will be giving a webinar next month at www.washaa.org on the topic, geared towards professional patient advocates, nurses, social workers, and the general public. 
> 
>  
> 
> Is there a point of view worth talking about that is hardly ever addressed? Any pointers on the various areas covered would be greatly appreciated: 
> 
>  
> 
> 1) Data/studies on effectiveness, diagnosis or treatment plan change after 2nd opinions, 
> 
> 2) When to seek (and when not to seek?) a second opinion
> 
> 3) How to select another provider for a second opinion
> 
> 4) Second opinion companies, their pros and cons as a resource
> 
> 5) Insurance issues with second opinion visits, diagnostics, etc. 
> 
>  
> 
> If you prefer a quick phone call instead, please let me know.  You can email me directly if you prefer. 
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks in advance for your help! 
> 
>  
> 
> Io 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Io Dolka, MS
> 
> GreyZone, LLC - Managing Director & Chief Care Advocate 
> 
> SIDM-Patient Engagement Committee Member
> 
> Direct: 206.355.1285  |  Email: iodolka at gmail.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: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/



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/20190305/31fba10c/attachment.html> ATTACHMENT:
Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12500 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20190305/31fba10c/attachment.jpg> ATTACHMENT:
Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 220505 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20190305/31fba10c/attachment.png>


More information about the Test mailing list