How about dealing with internet-informed patients?
That’s what some are saying in light of the recent Microsoft study. UK columnist John Naughton points out how variable the quality of health information is over the internet and that search engines aren’t designed to be diagnostic tools. Thus, they “have the potential to escalate medical concerns.”
Without physician interpretation to explain how it can apply to a specific patient situation renders much of the information on the web less than relevant.
There’s a reason why doctors need 10+ years of medical training.
topics: google, internet
Related posts:
- Is Google responsible for the decline of cognitive medicine?
- The new way to fight health myths, with spam
- Will patients or doctors be the biggest obstacle impeding health care reform?
- Poll: Is Twitter necessary for physicians and other medical professionals?
- A challenge to DO’s
- Should advance directives be stored online on Google Health?
- Should Wal-Mart train medical professionals?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
You tell ‘em, Kevin. I love this quote: “The role of the expert is to know what to ignore.”
I hate to say it, but my past experience has been that the internet is really an essential tool for making up deficiencies in the instruction I’ve received from my doctors. A surgeon may feel that all the patient needs to know is “lie down and shut up until I tell you otherwise”, but it really is easier and less stressful if you understand what to expect, IMO.
In any case…this is another situation where if doctors were all conscientious, unbiased, and communicative, I’d have a much different opinion than I do in the real world of flawed human beings.
The Family Physician Reference Guide that every household has is another poor source for medical information.
Comments on this entry are closed.