Kevin Owen makes strange comments that offend me as a practitioner
who tries hard to be patient centred. I also object to proselitizing
links - unless you would like me to link to the Vatican, Lambeth Palace or
the Golden Temple at Amritza?
Lets keep the list focussed on EBH and research related problems, its what
it does best.
Kyran Farrell
>To who it may concern
>
>When a doctor tells a patient it is all in his mind,what he says to the
>patient is that the illness or symptoms the patient is experiencing are
>imaginary
>
>What he should communicate is that the illness or symptoms are not imaginary
>and infact are generated by the mind [stress] in the body [ Psychosomatic
>Illness]
>http://www.smi.org/lrh/index.htm
>
>He should also tell the patient that becuse he[the Doctor] puts a label on
>some symptoms,it doesn't automatically mean it is a
>disease.Abberation [stress]can cause a thousand different symptoms,none of
>them being diseases,only results of abberration.
>http://www.cchr.org/fraud/eng/page12.htm
>
>Regards
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "A Rashidian" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:39 PM
>Subject: Re: Communication of diagnoses
>
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Another point is how patients do interpret the communication. Doctor (or
>> other health professional) may discuss certainty and uncertainty at the
>> same time. But it is important to know if it is capable of starting a
>> real communication which is understandable by the patient.
>>
>> There is also a systematic review of risk communication interventions in
>> health care, that you may be aware of. Apart from the topic, they used a
>> meta-regression approach for data analysis which is interesting. This is
>> the citation:
>>
>> Edwards A, Hood K, Matthews E, Russell D, Russell I, Barker J et al. The
>> effectiveness of one-to-one risk-communication interventions in health
>> care: a systematic review. Medical Decision Making 2000;20:290-7.
>>
>> Regards
>> Arash
>> --
>> Arash Rashidian, MD
>> Health Services Research Scholar
>> Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation
>> Alcuin College, University of York
>> York, YO10 5DD, UK
>> Tel: +44 (0)1904 434498
>> Mobile: +44 (0)7786323559
>> Fax: +44 (0)1904 434517
>> http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ar130/
>> Studying Adherence to Guidelines and Evidence (SAGE)
>>
>> Andrew Jull wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear list
>> >
>> > Recently in NZ we have had a commission of inquiry into the misreading
>of
>> > cervical smear slides by a provinicial sole practice pathologist over a
>10
>> > year period. I had hoped as a consequence that the public and media may
>have
>> > gained insight into the fact that diagnosis is probabilistic.
>> >
>> > More recently aggresive media response to misread prostate samples in an
>> > audit of histology slides at a metropolitan laboratory leads me to
>believe
>> > that no such learning took place. At recent dinner party were we got to
>> > discussing this, it was news indeed to the lay imbibers who all thought
>a
>> > diagnosis once given was a certainty.
>> >
>> > In musing on this, I began to wonder whether EBP had had an impact how
>> > diagnoses are communicated by practitioners. For instance, if a
>practitioner
>> > were to tell a patient that the chances of having a disorder is now 90%
>> > following a test (or that they are 90% certain the patient has the
>disorder
>> > - not sure this is the same thing though), s/he is communicating both
>> > certainty and uncertainty. However, my GP will usually start by saying
>"I
>> > think that ...", which seems to communicate certainty but not
>uncertainty.
>> >
>> > I would welcome any thoughts on this
>> >
>> > Andrew Jull
>> > Clinical Nurse Consultant
>> > Auckland Hospital
>> > NEW ZEALAND
>> >
>> > NB my email address has changed to [log in to unmask] Please update
>your
>> > address book.
>
>
>
|