In article <[log in to unmask]>, Toby Lipman
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>The results are as follows:
>
>Referring practioner's diagnosis unchanged: 37 patients
>Diagnosis changed after history taking: 34 patients
>Diagnosis changed after physical examination: 6 patients
>Diagnosis changed after laboratory investigation:7 patients
>
>Interesting, isn't it?
Very interesting. What gets me about this thread is how task-based we
all are. Is the gp's function just to refer appropriately?
What about offering an opinion (the combination of pr and psa having a
high predictive value for ca. prostate), showing an interest or just
"dignifying with some importance".
Now who first said that?
Paul
Paul Robinson
GP & Course Organiser
Scarborough
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|