In our practice we have an open endoscopy system, as do most
gastroenterologists. This means that other physicians – or patients themselves –
can schedule a procedure with us without seeing us in advance for a
consultation. Of course, we are always
pleased to see any of these patients for an office visit in advance, but many
patients prefer the convenience of accomplishing the mission in one stop. This is reasonable for patients who truly
need our technical skill more than our medical advice.
Our office screens these procedure requests in
advance to verify that no office visit is necessary. While this process works very well, it is not
infallible. There have been times when a
patient arrives to our office poised for a colonoscopy with accompanying medical issues more
complex than we had expected.
No vetting procedure is failsafe. Have you seen the TSA statistics when they are tested in identifying dangerous items hidden in luggage? Even though our trained personnel vet the
procedure candidates, no process can capture every issue. Also, sometimes patients forget about a
medical condition or risk factor or medication, even when questioned about them.
In addition, there have been occasions when patients
arrive prepared for an endoscopic intrusion into their alimentary canal, when
the procedure may not be truly indicated.
Keep in mind that the timing of a medical test often depends upon medical
judgement. For example, capable
gastroenterologists may have differing opinions on whether a colonoscopy for a
particular patient makes sense.
Recently, a patient whom I had never met arrived for me to do a colonoscopy. He had enthusiastically swallowed the liquid dynamite which had the desired cleansing effect. I presume he took a day off of work and had a driver with him. My review of his records demonstrated that he was about 2 years too soon for this procedure. The reason he scheduled the exam is because his prior gastroenterologist’s office sent him a computer-generated letter that he was due for a colonic violation. In other words, the patient was following his doctor’s advice.
Colonoscopy - It's Alimentary!
Recently, a patient whom I had never met arrived for me to do a colonoscopy. He had enthusiastically swallowed the liquid dynamite which had the desired cleansing effect. I presume he took a day off of work and had a driver with him. My review of his records demonstrated that he was about 2 years too soon for this procedure. The reason he scheduled the exam is because his prior gastroenterologist’s office sent him a computer-generated letter that he was due for a colonic violation. In other words, the patient was following his doctor’s advice.
I speculate that the reason that the computer issued
a Notice to Appear was that the prior gastroenterologist experienced a ‘click
malfunction’ and clicked Return in 3 Years by error, rather than have correctly requested a Return in 5 Year recall. While this may sound egregious, ask your
doctor how many screw ups he has committed on electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Indeed, EMR has created a new niche for
medical malpractice attorneys to sue physicians and hospitals.
So, I have a patient before me who endured a night
of purging, who has missed work and has a driver with him. But, he is 2 years early. What should I do?
What did you do??
ReplyDeleteI'm astonished that only 1 individual inquired as to what transpired! I approached the patient and advised him that from a medical standpoint, he was not due for the examination. I wanted him to know this and to have an opportunity to cancel the procedure. I also told him that I would be willing to do his case, since he had endured the miserable process of ingesting a high powered laxative, and was now in my office, along with a driver. In my experience, once a person has endured the prep, they want to proceed with the examination no matter what. This guy surprised me. He thanked me for my candor and honest and told me he would return in 2 years at the correct time.
ReplyDeleteI bet that is your wife who inquired! LOL
ReplyDeleteI was curious too, actually.
@anonymous, WRONG!
ReplyDelete