4 ms·
Incase you find this useful: Just lying in hospital bed here about 36 hours after 2nd revision on a THR first done in 1987. In the absence of clear public metr
by hermanhermitage 12y ago
Incase you find this useful:
Just lying in hospital bed here about 36 hours after 2nd revision on a THR first done in 1987. In the absence of clear public metrics I used the following approach to choose my most recent surgeon:
1. Age/experience. I was looking for someone about 2/3 of their way thru career. Assuming experience and survival bias were positive indicators.
2. I got a series of second opinions asking surgeons the direct question of whom they would get to operate on themselves if they needed the procedure done.
3. I consulted a series of family doctors on their recommendations.
4. I went with someone with a strong track record designing prostheses but also a large history of performing the particular procedure I was having.
There are always trade offs. My surgeon works long shifts and so I got them 12 hours into a shift on a friday, which had me a little nervous (fatigue wise).
So my main advice is don't be shy in getting a lot of opinions and advice. I will probably need another 2-3 revisions in my life time on this hip alone. So I thought it worth my while taking a thorough approach.
Still at the end of the day bad luck can always happen. Expect the best but be mentally prepared for the worst.
- tomcam 12y agoI believe #2 is key and have thought for years this could be the basis of a super-effective site. But not a lucrative one: a key problem is that any kind of monetization that would benefit the doctors doing the rating could pervert the results.
- imaginenore 12y agoIt could easily turn into "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" type of reviews. Even voting rings of doctors.
- hermanhermitage 12y agoDefinitely detected that in my travels - diabolical surgeon golfers ring :). I learnt to ask them what handicap they play off.
- shanusmagnus 12y agoThank you, that is indeed useful. I've been doing a kind of crappy and ad-hoc version of 1 and 3, although the latter (and recommendations in general) has been less useful than I thought, since the GPs I know aren't in a great position to evaluate orthopedic surgeons -- their experience is limited, and they also lack data; but also because I can get a strong rec from someone I trust to a surgeon that my insurance won't cover. But that's a whole nother topic. Your systematicity in the search is inspiring, though. Thanks for the advice.
- Ntrails 12y agoSo who do you nominate to be operated on by the surgeons exactly 1/5 of the way through their career? The poor? The desperate? How about those over the hill all the way over at 7/8ths through? The guy who has only done this procedure twice before, shall we have him work only on the mentally deficient who don't know any better? By definition we cannot all have the best surgeon (and there is one). Therefore you can only ration access to this "best" surgeon in one of three ways: need, luck, or money. Personally I'd rank them in that order in terms of sense - and none of them truly involve patient choice. Metrics are great for use internally, as oversight. They allow hospitals to assess doctors, to help doctors, to improve practices and better themselves. As a "consumer" of healthcare I think they're mostly damaging.