2nd Opinions

Io Dolka iodolka at GMAIL.COM
Tue Mar 5 21:17:43 UTC 2019


Many thanks Mark and David. This distinction, David, between the equivalent 
vs different expertise is quite informative. I like the example of the 

patient that hears their eyeballs move. Powerful in terms of the effect of 
the usual "it is all in your head" assumption when a provider might not 

even be aware of a potential organic rather than psychiatric reason for the 
symptoms. We see this in our advocacy practice for greyzone conditions 

quite often, where for example people with dysautonomias and POTS, are 

misdiagnosed with anxiety and go down the wrong treatment path, ever 
deteriorating, until they usually seek themselves a different expertise 

evaluation.  

Io 


Io Dolka

Direct: 206.355.1285  |  Email: iodolka at gmail.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:
>
>    1. “Equivalent expertise” second opinions
>    2. “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 
> <http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/results/directory/profile/0015937/david-newman-toker>
>
> Director, Division of Neuro-Visual & Vestibular Disorders 
> <http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/vestibular/team/>
>
> *Director, Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence 
> <http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/armstrong_institute/center_for_diagnostic_excellence/>*
>
> *Core Faculty, Brain Injury OutcomeS (BIOS) Clinical Trials Unit 
> <http://braininjuryoutcomes.com/>*
>
> *President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine 
> <http://www.improvediagnosis.org/?page=BoardMembers>*
>
>  
>
> 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 
> <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 
>
> [image: vcs]
>
>  
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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/ 







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


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20190305/942d63c6/attachment.html> ATTACHMENT:
Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12500 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20190305/942d63c6/attachment.jpg> ATTACHMENT:
Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 220505 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20190305/942d63c6/attachment.png>


More information about the Test mailing list