5 ms·

Oh god no. People are already grinding their doctors gears thanks to webmd. Those apps won't help. I needs a professional to look at things. In the end this cha

Oh god no. People are already grinding their doctors gears thanks to webmd. Those apps won't help. I needs a professional to look at things. In the end this chat bot/ decision tree mashup will just make things worse.

mistermann 9y ago
Not everyone is fortunate to have a good doctor, and some doctors (mine, for example) could learn something very valuable if they'd take a few minutes to listen when their patients have done a lot of research on their own.
- daveguy 9y ago
  The problem is 1 out of 1000 patients will actually do research. The other 999 will google their symptoms, read whatever pops up in positions 1-5 and think it is research.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Agreed, but it's a bit frustrating when a doctor actively ignores someone who obviously has some valuable knowledge the doctor could benefit from. If they are incapable of that, I question how they are capable of competently diagnosing illnesses, which is a far more complicated task. Granted, I'm writing from Canada, and while having free health care is lovely, what's usually overlooked is that it is very often second or third rate care, if you can even get it (free doesn't help much when there are multi-year waiting lists).
    - daveguy 9y ago
      Are there really multi-year waiting lists to see a doctor in Canada? Specialists and new gp appts or all regular visits? Usually it's 2-6 mo for new patients (specialist or popular gp) here in the US. I didn't think Canada was much worse than that.
      - a3camero 9y ago
        No. Many people are able to book visits with their family doctor (GP) on short notice (e.g. next week). Walk-in clinics are available and you can see a doctor within a couple hours, same-day, without an appointment (and without being registered beforehand, literally just walk in). These doctors are fully licensed. Although it's not easy to find a good doctor that you like, there are family doctors available for new patients even in busy cities like Toronto. Specialists might take a while to book (assuming it's not serious). Emergency rooms are always available (although you may have to wait a few hours if it's not really time-sensitive). Labs can be booked same day and may have a bit of a line up but you can get those for free too (for most types of tests).
      - mistermann 9y ago
        If you need to see a specialist for a medium or lower level issue, I think you may continuously get bumped I think? But a 6 month or longer wait is perfectly normal.
    - wux 9y ago
      From the perspective of a healthcare provider: First, every patient has very valuable knowledge for their physician: their symptoms. There's absolutely no substitute, and as a patient you are the definitive source for that information and the undisputed expert. Second, I do find that it's very often helpful when my patients have done some reading about their condition. It shows engagement in their care and is a great way to jumpstart the conversation. And it gives me a good idea of the level of insight into their disease and the best way to approach the patient education part of my task. However, to be clear, it is my responsibility ethically and legally to have the expertise to treat you and to apply that expertise in making an assessment and plan. If I find that I don't have the expertise that's necessary, I should be consulting with or referring you to another medical professional who does. It's your right to have your physician's thinking explained to you and to agree or disagree with the plan, and if you think your physician is wrong, it's also your right to ask for a second opinion. However, it is never ethical for me to rely on your medical judgment in formulating a plan. So, please don't take it the wrong way when your physician limits the amount of research he or she will hear from you. I stick to strict boundaries even with patients who are physicians themselves--even when they are significantly more senior and experienced. And when I'm the patient, I try my hardest to describe only my symptoms, confident that I will receive better care that way.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        What bothers me about this comment, and seems entirely consistent with my experience with doctors, is the apparent lack of recognition of the notion of unknown unknowns. > However, to be clear, it is my responsibility ethically and legally to have the expertise to treat you and to apply that expertise in making an assessment and plan. If I find that I don't have the expertise that's necessary, I should be consulting with or referring you to another medical professional who does. It may be your "ethical and legal responsibility", but how is a doctor that sees patients 8 hours a day supposed to keep up with new discoveries, and how is the perfectly reasonable scenario of not knowing you don't know something supposed to be resolved for the good of the patient? > However, it is never ethical for me to rely on your medical judgment in formulating a plan. Is it ethical to have an ego so large that you literally refuse to listen when your patient is trying to inform you of something that you apparently have no knowledge of (arrogantly interpreting this as the patient making a "medical judgement" and patting them on the head for your incorrect assumption of their intellectual arrogance)? This is why I am of the opinion that the broad medical establishment needs to be reminded that they are not omniscient, through no fault of their own.
  - abawany 9y ago
    It is stunning to me that most people that I know are unable to decouple what Google returns to them from the source. When (i.e. always) I ask for attribution for what I consider a dubious medical claim, the answer invariably comes back as: Google. I then clarify (for the umpteenth time) that Google is like a radio receiver and they have to be able to tell me what station gave them this information (1). This is often met with a blank stare. I then state that it is important to get information from well-attributed sites, especially for a critical matter such as health, and offer them examples of sites that I consider credible for supplementary medical information (2). It is a little scary how little of a filter most people apply against critical health information. 1: This is the closest analogy I have come upon to explain to folks the difference between websites and search engines. 2: Typically NIH or Mayo Clinic
    - mistermann 9y ago
      Is WebMD bad? It's usually the #1 to 3 hit on google.
      - abawany 9y ago
        It seems to be a bit content-free, with pop-up ads, and lacking attribution from what I can tell. However, if no other reference is available, I will certainly look at its information over the various other persons that infest the web with fake medical fiction. EDIT: for example, http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#1 http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#... - if you have never visited WebMD or hit this page using incognito, it will hit you with a pop-up ad within 5 seconds. EDIT2: An under-rated site is the Merck Manual. Their corresponding page for the consumer edition is thus: https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-and-leprosy/tuberculosis-tb https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-an... .
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- yarone 9y ago
  This is a systemic problem in healthcare. Doctors do not have time to listen to their patients. Typical primary care doctor has 2,500 patients, sees 25-30 per day. Typing / interrupting them within 30 seconds.
mattferderer 9y ago
I welcome these ideas. They may be rough around the edges at first (like WebMD) but hopefully they can help people & doctors research possible solutions. Software developers constantly complain about "JavaScript Fatigue". Can you imagine the fatigue of trying to keep up on health issues? I would greatly appreciate my doctor being able to be instantly alerted that my symptoms match a possible new strain of virus & what the success rates have been for possible treatments. As a new-ish parent, hopefully these can help relax some of the anxiety you go through during your first few years. WebMD & other sites were actually helpful for us at times. Not to cut down doctors, but finding a good doctor can often be very difficult. I completely understand the demand in trying to find quality medical advice that you can trust. It's a hard & very valuable problem to solve, so the more resources people throw at it the better.

mistermann 9y ago

Not everyone is fortunate to have a good doctor, and some doctors (mine, for example) could learn something very valuable if they'd take a few minutes to listen when their patients have done a lot of research on their own.

daveguy 9y ago
The problem is 1 out of 1000 patients will actually do research. The other 999 will google their symptoms, read whatever pops up in positions 1-5 and think it is research.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 9y ago
  Agreed, but it's a bit frustrating when a doctor actively ignores someone who obviously has some valuable knowledge the doctor could benefit from. If they are incapable of that, I question how they are capable of competently diagnosing illnesses, which is a far more complicated task. Granted, I'm writing from Canada, and while having free health care is lovely, what's usually overlooked is that it is very often second or third rate care, if you can even get it (free doesn't help much when there are multi-year waiting lists).
  - daveguy 9y ago
    Are there really multi-year waiting lists to see a doctor in Canada? Specialists and new gp appts or all regular visits? Usually it's 2-6 mo for new patients (specialist or popular gp) here in the US. I didn't think Canada was much worse than that.
    - a3camero 9y ago
      No. Many people are able to book visits with their family doctor (GP) on short notice (e.g. next week). Walk-in clinics are available and you can see a doctor within a couple hours, same-day, without an appointment (and without being registered beforehand, literally just walk in). These doctors are fully licensed. Although it's not easy to find a good doctor that you like, there are family doctors available for new patients even in busy cities like Toronto. Specialists might take a while to book (assuming it's not serious). Emergency rooms are always available (although you may have to wait a few hours if it's not really time-sensitive). Labs can be booked same day and may have a bit of a line up but you can get those for free too (for most types of tests).
    - mistermann 9y ago
      If you need to see a specialist for a medium or lower level issue, I think you may continuously get bumped I think? But a 6 month or longer wait is perfectly normal.
  - wux 9y ago
    From the perspective of a healthcare provider: First, every patient has very valuable knowledge for their physician: their symptoms. There's absolutely no substitute, and as a patient you are the definitive source for that information and the undisputed expert. Second, I do find that it's very often helpful when my patients have done some reading about their condition. It shows engagement in their care and is a great way to jumpstart the conversation. And it gives me a good idea of the level of insight into their disease and the best way to approach the patient education part of my task. However, to be clear, it is my responsibility ethically and legally to have the expertise to treat you and to apply that expertise in making an assessment and plan. If I find that I don't have the expertise that's necessary, I should be consulting with or referring you to another medical professional who does. It's your right to have your physician's thinking explained to you and to agree or disagree with the plan, and if you think your physician is wrong, it's also your right to ask for a second opinion. However, it is never ethical for me to rely on your medical judgment in formulating a plan. So, please don't take it the wrong way when your physician limits the amount of research he or she will hear from you. I stick to strict boundaries even with patients who are physicians themselves--even when they are significantly more senior and experienced. And when I'm the patient, I try my hardest to describe only my symptoms, confident that I will receive better care that way.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      What bothers me about this comment, and seems entirely consistent with my experience with doctors, is the apparent lack of recognition of the notion of unknown unknowns. > However, to be clear, it is my responsibility ethically and legally to have the expertise to treat you and to apply that expertise in making an assessment and plan. If I find that I don't have the expertise that's necessary, I should be consulting with or referring you to another medical professional who does. It may be your "ethical and legal responsibility", but how is a doctor that sees patients 8 hours a day supposed to keep up with new discoveries, and how is the perfectly reasonable scenario of not knowing you don't know something supposed to be resolved for the good of the patient? > However, it is never ethical for me to rely on your medical judgment in formulating a plan. Is it ethical to have an ego so large that you literally refuse to listen when your patient is trying to inform you of something that you apparently have no knowledge of (arrogantly interpreting this as the patient making a "medical judgement" and patting them on the head for your incorrect assumption of their intellectual arrogance)? This is why I am of the opinion that the broad medical establishment needs to be reminded that they are not omniscient, through no fault of their own.
- abawany 9y ago
  It is stunning to me that most people that I know are unable to decouple what Google returns to them from the source. When (i.e. always) I ask for attribution for what I consider a dubious medical claim, the answer invariably comes back as: Google. I then clarify (for the umpteenth time) that Google is like a radio receiver and they have to be able to tell me what station gave them this information (1). This is often met with a blank stare. I then state that it is important to get information from well-attributed sites, especially for a critical matter such as health, and offer them examples of sites that I consider credible for supplementary medical information (2). It is a little scary how little of a filter most people apply against critical health information. 1: This is the closest analogy I have come upon to explain to folks the difference between websites and search engines. 2: Typically NIH or Mayo Clinic
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Is WebMD bad? It's usually the #1 to 3 hit on google.
    - abawany 9y ago
      It seems to be a bit content-free, with pop-up ads, and lacking attribution from what I can tell. However, if no other reference is available, I will certainly look at its information over the various other persons that infest the web with fake medical fiction. EDIT: for example, http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#1 http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#... - if you have never visited WebMD or hit this page using incognito, it will hit you with a pop-up ad within 5 seconds. EDIT2: An under-rated site is the Merck Manual. Their corresponding page for the consumer edition is thus: https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-and-leprosy/tuberculosis-tb https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-an... .
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yarone 9y ago
This is a systemic problem in healthcare. Doctors do not have time to listen to their patients. Typical primary care doctor has 2,500 patients, sees 25-30 per day. Typing / interrupting them within 30 seconds.

mattferderer 9y ago

I welcome these ideas. They may be rough around the edges at first (like WebMD) but hopefully they can help people & doctors research possible solutions. Software developers constantly complain about "JavaScript Fatigue". Can you imagine the fatigue of trying to keep up on health issues? I would greatly appreciate my doctor being able to be instantly alerted that my symptoms match a possible new strain of virus & what the success rates have been for possible treatments. As a new-ish parent, hopefully these can help relax some of the anxiety you go through during your first few years. WebMD & other sites were actually helpful for us at times. Not to cut down doctors, but finding a good doctor can often be very difficult. I completely understand the demand in trying to find quality medical advice that you can trust. It's a hard & very valuable problem to solve, so the more resources people throw at it the better.