<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Diagnostic errors in internal medicine</title> <atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/diagnostic-errors-in-internal-medicine.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/diagnostic-errors-in-internal-medicine.html</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:04:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/diagnostic-errors-in-internal-medicine.html#comment-79430</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:50:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/diagnostic-errors-in-internal-medicine.html#comment-79430</guid> <description>Not a bad rate I think.  I don&#039;t want to see someone who has to be 100%  right everytime--I&#039;ll never get out without a 200,000 dollar bill.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The trick is to know when a low level of confidence is good enough, and when it isn&#039;t.  That is a function of the risk of the offered treatment for the probably diagnosis and the risk of missing the alternatives.  How likely am I missing something bad?  What is the likelyhood that I could do something about it if I did find this was really someting else?  There is usually no need to go overboard being certain of self-limiting conditions or conditions not very treatable anyway.  And there is nothing wrong with having a low threshold for diagnosing and treating the things that can be treated easily and cheaply with low risks.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not a bad rate I think.  I don&#8217;t want to see someone who has to be 100%  right everytime&#8211;I&#8217;ll never get out without a 200,000 dollar bill.</p><p>The trick is to know when a low level of confidence is good enough, and when it isn&#8217;t.  That is a function of the risk of the offered treatment for the probably diagnosis and the risk of missing the alternatives.  How likely am I missing something bad?  What is the likelyhood that I could do something about it if I did find this was really someting else?  There is usually no need to go overboard being certain of self-limiting conditions or conditions not very treatable anyway.  And there is nothing wrong with having a low threshold for diagnosing and treating the things that can be treated easily and cheaply with low risks.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/6 queries in 0.003 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 341/345 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via cdn.kevinmd.com

Served from: www.kevinmd.com @ 2012-02-14 17:21:40 -->
