It seems that patients are surprised and upset at the amount of defensive medicine and overtesting routinely thrown at them.
What about giving patients a choice? Not realistic, as this physician commenter eloquently summarizes our defensive medicine conundrum. I hope that every patient and lawyer reads this (emphasis mine):
I wanted to address a misconception: giving patients information about risks of diagnostic testing and allowing them to decide if, say, a CT scan is necessary for pain which has, for example, a 4% chance of being appendicitis, simply does not work. The phrase “patient declined CT scan,” does not protect the ER doctor in any way. A signed AMA form is marginally helpful.
The ones “over a barrel” are the doctors, who know that their clinical accumen and training allow for 97% certainty. There was a time when that was sufficient. Now, anything less than 100% certainty is grounds for suit, whether you explained the odds or not. Explaining incidence of disease and risks of tests is just polite, and I routinely engage in such discussions with patients who show an ability to understand, but it doesn’t really have a place in emergency medicine, and doesn’t really affect my practice style.
This is why emergency medicine is so expensive. Armed with only a good history and physical exam, I can often exclude appendicitis with 97% certainty. But there will always be atypical presentations, no matter how good of a clinician I am. For each percentage point of certainty, add about $1000 of tests. Thus, lab tests get me to 98%, CT with contrast to 99%, surgical consult with admission for observation and exploratory laparotomy gets me to 100%. I frequently stop at 99%.
If I were to explain this to more patients, more of them would opt out of the scan. Because I see about 11 cases of abdominal pain per night, this approach would miss appendicitis at least twice a year. Therefore, giving patients the option increases the risk to me, because there is no protection except for 100% perfection. Documenting that there was no right lower quadrant tenderness of rebound does not hold up. We are sued not for deviation from standards, but for bad outcomes.
I really wish there was a better way. For patients who actually try to pay their bills (less that 17% at my institution), I feel especially bad. On the other hand, defensive medicine actually does help prevent that 1-2% extra chance of bad outcomes. Unfortunately taxpayers are picking up the tab (for my patients).