Nicholas Bakalar (NY Times Science Section Apr 30) reports that a study published in the British Medical Journal Quality and Safety, concluded that diagnostic errors are the "most common cause of paid claims for malpractice." Researchers reported that these claims resulted in 28.6 percent of malpractice payments, more than errors resulting from various forms of therapy, or the combined total of payments for errors in obstetrical care, medication error, monitoring mistakes, anesthesia complications combined.
I feel certain that some of these awards may have been made in cases where there, in fact, was no diagnostic error, or that the error played no significant role in the eventual outcome. But I am also certain that there may have been other serious errors which never were brought to a lawyer's attention. In any event, the number is what it is - and should be addressed.
Diagnosis is the result of algorithmic evaluation of data by the physician. A physician begins his diagnostic journey with a detailed history and physical examination. Progressing algorithmically, he then pursues additional data by requesting various diagnostic tests or procedures. These may raise the possibility of a number of diagnostic probabilities leading to further, more involved diagnostic plans. Eventually(and quickly one would hope) he arrives at the actual diagnosis, or the most likely diagnosis.
A computerized form of such appropriate diagnostic methodology will significantly reduce the possibility of physician diagnostic error. Most physicians are not the "Dr. House," or some other amazing diagnostic genius, depicted of various TV dramas. Physicians are human - they consistently make mistakes. Development of this technology should significantly decrease diagnostic errors - especially where major diagnostic dilemmas exist.
But no technology will be able to correct improper input. The physician who does not take an accurate history, or who does not detect an abnormal pulse, or who does not hear an abnormal heart sound, or who evaluates the size of a person's liver incorrectly will not input correct information.
"Garbage in - Garbage out!"
I feel certain that some of these awards may have been made in cases where there, in fact, was no diagnostic error, or that the error played no significant role in the eventual outcome. But I am also certain that there may have been other serious errors which never were brought to a lawyer's attention. In any event, the number is what it is - and should be addressed.
Diagnosis is the result of algorithmic evaluation of data by the physician. A physician begins his diagnostic journey with a detailed history and physical examination. Progressing algorithmically, he then pursues additional data by requesting various diagnostic tests or procedures. These may raise the possibility of a number of diagnostic probabilities leading to further, more involved diagnostic plans. Eventually(and quickly one would hope) he arrives at the actual diagnosis, or the most likely diagnosis.
A computerized form of such appropriate diagnostic methodology will significantly reduce the possibility of physician diagnostic error. Most physicians are not the "Dr. House," or some other amazing diagnostic genius, depicted of various TV dramas. Physicians are human - they consistently make mistakes. Development of this technology should significantly decrease diagnostic errors - especially where major diagnostic dilemmas exist.
But no technology will be able to correct improper input. The physician who does not take an accurate history, or who does not detect an abnormal pulse, or who does not hear an abnormal heart sound, or who evaluates the size of a person's liver incorrectly will not input correct information.
"Garbage in - Garbage out!"
No comments:
Post a Comment