 |
 |
Marjan Kljakovic wrote: > The solution will come when more and more patients demand a quantified > answer. when they ask: "how many survive"? or "What is the risk"? Or "how > useful is this test"? then the quality of the doctor is determined by HOW > the answer is given. The future doctor will put a human face to numbers. I > have no idea how or when such a future will occur Explaining risk to patients is a difficult area. If doctors don't understand statisitcs and probability, how can you expect the average out patient to comprehend the principles? Also different ways of presenting the same reuslts (RRR, ARR, odds ratios) can produce more or less sanguine responses in the listener. Some would say (including two friends having batteries of tests at present) that from the patient's point of view, whatever "odds" they are quoted, they view it as a straight 50 : 50 I have it ; I don't have it. Various ways of converting "probabilities" into something more accessible (horse racing odds, chances on national lotteries, graphical representation) have been tried. See Risk Communication from Prof. Mike Campbell at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/wrp/riskcom.html Also, the BMJ's short personal view on likening cancer therapy's outcomes to football goal scoring: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7239/949 >It seems the > pathologist was not counting how well he did, or how well he compared with > peers. (He was his own gold standard and would have done well in Galen's > time). What is happening in NZ about professional re-acccrediataion, re- validation, and the underperofrmance of clinicians? Regards Alan O'Rourke Alan O'Rourke Information Officer Wisdom Centre for Network Learning http://www.wisdom.org.uk/ Institute of General Practice Community Sciences Centre Northern General Hospital Sheffield S5 7AU Tel: 0114 271 5095 Fax: 0114 243 3762 E-mail: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%