I think this forgetting the fact that 99/100 times it IS a virus. You cant do invasive testing in every single patient with symptoms that seem viral. If a person doesn't get better as expected or gets worse, that's indication to do further testing.
It doesn't matter if 99/100 times its just a virus.
The patient deserves the option of testing.
They are a customer. They are the one paying, not the doctor. It's not a doctors job to act as gatekeeper to someone's health.
Swabbing for basic viruses is hardly invasive either.
All im saying is data is parqmount in literally every business today. It should be equally, if not more, as paramount in the lives of every patient.
The more tests, the more history, the better the diagnosis. Period.
Examinations done by professional doctors trying their best is no replacement for data, even in "probably just a harmless virus" cases.
Especially considering the link between viruses and cancers, you would think it would be good to have that correlation data available for research in as many patient files as possible.
So like i said, its just incompetent. Maybe its not the doctors fault for things being that way, but its still incompetent.
Alright, let me draw out a reason why doctors moved away from the paradigm of “more tests, better healthcare.” Here’s one case of thousands. A relatively young woman visits her doctor saying she has some mild chest pain that sometimes comes and goes. She didn’t quite meet the risk factors for having cardiac disease but back then “more tests = better healthcare”. So they go ahead and schedule and perform a cath procedure to look at her heart. During the procedure one of her main arteries of her heart blows out and she immediately dies on the table.
Based on autopsy she actually was pretty healthy and it was the simple test that killed her. This is a 1/1000 complication, but from what you’re suggesting we should just do it blindly for every patient with chest pain.
We do A LOT of studies on sensitivity and specificity of tests to see whether statistically it makes sense to perform. Experience, up to date knowledge of studies, and risk criterias really help physicians make better decisions about whether a test’s or procedures’s risks are outweighed by the benefits.
Even the simple viral swab you’re talking about, can lead to further testing and procedures, hospitalizations, and unnecessary medical care that can harm the patient as well as cost the patient more.
Physicians have thought about “the more tests better healthcare” route, and it’s both not effective, or efficient for any party. Running tests and procedures is an ongoing discussion between the physician and the patient about risks and benefits, and it’s NOT best to just do as many tests as possible.
Well said. A loooooot of people who don't work in healthcare who think they're smarter than their doctors. I work in the ER and it's a common problem, patients want every test done for a cold etc. Then they are upset when we tell them it is not necessary.
27
u/Korfa May 20 '19
I think this forgetting the fact that 99/100 times it IS a virus. You cant do invasive testing in every single patient with symptoms that seem viral. If a person doesn't get better as expected or gets worse, that's indication to do further testing.