Checked some medical stuff in preparation for the consultation this afternoon.
I always copy the letters of my doctors, so I immediately saw the changes which were made by the doctor who assed my spine.
Last week he added to the symptoms list the process going on in one of the vertebrae. I was fine with that, as omission means that check ups for that are not done when he retires.
I think that growth should have been reported in the first place.
But now I saw he left out all the haemangiomas and cysts.
I think I know why.
In the first place they shouldn't cause any issues, unless pressing on a nerve or breaking open.
In the second place: they allow a complete different differential diagnosis (diagnoses that need to be considered), and he knows, just like I do, that his findings can be interpreted in a complete other way than he did...because I suffer back pains from my childhood and not from menopause.
More and more I see letters become less accurate. That's because those letters are dictated and recorded at the end of the day, preferably without the x-rays and MRI on the screen, as that saves time.
I am kind fed up with all the inaccuracies I find the past years. I can understand...but that is diminishing, because AI can give a proper medical account after a consultation and after reports. So why create a less informative letter to a GP?
I am glad I put in my files that I have no GP.
They won't "forget" to put the letter in my files, and they won't simplify their language so information gets lost.
But it causes stress: seeing first detailed reports have been replaced.
And it undermines my trust.
To be honest: I thought it great he assessed my back and was open about his findings in the first place. But seeing the replacement makes me remind the past: him standing with a beer, joking and being interesting (mainly for himself.)
In my lessons for the social department, so in the eighties!!, we always had "letters" as a subject of attention.
Came in handy for myself too, as I did some expertise work for the courts, and often got a compliment (and even once some extra money) because they were clear, gave optimal information and were fully accurate and without omissions.
At the medical department letters were pretty standard, so they got minimal attention.
A few years I began to notice mistakes, sloppiness and I could see with how little attention they were made.
So I started to pointing the students to the need of accuracy.
At present I also tell them not to copy the medication list of the hospital, but only mention the mutations made at hospital.
That was fed by the mess the registration made of the medication list: not taking medication out or put non-used medication on a duifferent page, but just: "not used anymore"right behind it.
So a quick visual scan of the list didn't show properly that some medications were not used anymore.
Consequence was that faulty list went from hospital, to GP, to pharmacy and around, and around.
It took me 1,5 year to get the right list at every part of the trio... and within 3 months it was a mess again.
So I have withdrawn permission to spread my information, and I notice where things go wrong.
And it mainly goes wrong at that hospital's medicine registration!!
I don't advice people to stop all contacts between medical files. And I they have a good GP I don't think it's wise to block reports among the trio.
But I do advice to make a copy of letters and save them at your own files.
For me that comes in handy when I am travelling and might fall ill.
I send the most recent and relevant reports to my phone-mail, so it can be assessed in case the information is needed. My friends and kids know how to access that info.
That works for me.
I always copy the letters of my doctors, so I immediately saw the changes which were made by the doctor who assed my spine.
Last week he added to the symptoms list the process going on in one of the vertebrae. I was fine with that, as omission means that check ups for that are not done when he retires.
I think that growth should have been reported in the first place.
But now I saw he left out all the haemangiomas and cysts.
I think I know why.
In the first place they shouldn't cause any issues, unless pressing on a nerve or breaking open.
In the second place: they allow a complete different differential diagnosis (diagnoses that need to be considered), and he knows, just like I do, that his findings can be interpreted in a complete other way than he did...because I suffer back pains from my childhood and not from menopause.
More and more I see letters become less accurate. That's because those letters are dictated and recorded at the end of the day, preferably without the x-rays and MRI on the screen, as that saves time.
I am kind fed up with all the inaccuracies I find the past years. I can understand...but that is diminishing, because AI can give a proper medical account after a consultation and after reports. So why create a less informative letter to a GP?
I am glad I put in my files that I have no GP.
They won't "forget" to put the letter in my files, and they won't simplify their language so information gets lost.
But it causes stress: seeing first detailed reports have been replaced.
And it undermines my trust.
To be honest: I thought it great he assessed my back and was open about his findings in the first place. But seeing the replacement makes me remind the past: him standing with a beer, joking and being interesting (mainly for himself.)
In my lessons for the social department, so in the eighties!!, we always had "letters" as a subject of attention.
Came in handy for myself too, as I did some expertise work for the courts, and often got a compliment (and even once some extra money) because they were clear, gave optimal information and were fully accurate and without omissions.
At the medical department letters were pretty standard, so they got minimal attention.
A few years I began to notice mistakes, sloppiness and I could see with how little attention they were made.
So I started to pointing the students to the need of accuracy.
At present I also tell them not to copy the medication list of the hospital, but only mention the mutations made at hospital.
That was fed by the mess the registration made of the medication list: not taking medication out or put non-used medication on a duifferent page, but just: "not used anymore"right behind it.
So a quick visual scan of the list didn't show properly that some medications were not used anymore.
Consequence was that faulty list went from hospital, to GP, to pharmacy and around, and around.
It took me 1,5 year to get the right list at every part of the trio... and within 3 months it was a mess again.
So I have withdrawn permission to spread my information, and I notice where things go wrong.
And it mainly goes wrong at that hospital's medicine registration!!
I don't advice people to stop all contacts between medical files. And I they have a good GP I don't think it's wise to block reports among the trio.
But I do advice to make a copy of letters and save them at your own files.
For me that comes in handy when I am travelling and might fall ill.
I send the most recent and relevant reports to my phone-mail, so it can be assessed in case the information is needed. My friends and kids know how to access that info.
That works for me.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment