I wish I could write that medical care today is an optimal, cost-effective and efficient system that consistently provides appropriate
and sterling medical care. I wish I
could write that pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and extended care
facilities all view patient care as their primary and overriding mission. I wish I could write that physicians all
share the highest ethos of patient advocacy.
It is not possible to achieve these idealistic goals as the
individual professionals, corporate entities and the government that comprise
the medical profession are imperfect and face
numerous conflicts of interests. Indeed,
this blog as devoted considerable space to highlighting these issues.
Here’s a representative vignette from my world.
I was asked to see a hospitalized patient for an opinion on
her low blood count, or anemia. This is
a common request for gastroenterologists as internal bleeding is a frequent explanation for anemia. This is when we gastroenterologists
get a truly ‘insider’s view’ of your intestine with our colonoscopes and other
gadgets. Not every anemic patient,
however, needs to be subjected to our probing.
If we judge, for example, that the anemia is not caused by blood loss,
then we will hold our fire and request that an appropriate medical consultant be recruited. Another reason we
might keep our scopes securely holstered with a patient who has had true
blood loss is if we have safety concerns about proceeding with procedures.
The patient I saw was ailing and elderly. She had many chronic medical conditions. There was no evidence of blood loss
explaining her anemia. Therefore, I
advised against proceeding with any scope intrusions. The attending physician was dissatisfied with
my advice and requested that another gastroenterologist, presumably a more
compliant practitioner, see the patient. The doctor reached over me instead of reaching out to me.
I am not asking readers to support my medical advice. Perhaps, I was entirely wrong and the
attending physician correctly recognized that internal bleeding was the
culprit. Perhaps, she was aware of
certain medical facts that I did not know.
Maybe I am a mediocre specialist. The point is that the next step in the process
should have been for the two of us to engage in a conversation so when we could have a dialogue and arrive at a decision that we both felt served the patient’s
interest.
I would have settled for a message by carrier pigeon.
Of course, conversations between physicians are commonplace. But, patients would be
surprised how seldom conversations between medical colleagues occur. For
example, there are certain physicians who don’t send reports to me when they see
one of my patients.
For these reasons and others, there is increasing
space in the medical marketplace available for an emerging medical professional
– the patient advocate. These folks can be hired by patients to make sure the medical evaluation is proceeding smoothly and that everyone on the case is fully informed. Isn’t this what we doctors are supposed to do?
Comments
Post a Comment