Slashdot Mirror
Interesting Enemies For a Diagnostic Database
dlh writes: "Boston.com is carrying an article about Dr. Lawrence L. Weed's Problem Knowledge Coupler software. Apparently the medical profession is not exactly thrilled at the idea." Seems access to information is a positive thing, but certain doctors seem to feel threatened by this sort of database.
Most doctor visits that my kids and I have been to follow a rather simple algorithm:
1. Get swabs of patient mouth and ass
2. Perscribe patient antibiotics and
Codene.
3. Politely send patient away
4. Send swabs to lab
5. Play golf
Table-ized A.I.
As a practicing physician (and software engineer since 1978, so don't get in a hissy fit), I have very little use for the program. Not that I don't find the idea of an expert system for diagnosis to be interesting, but it's clinically useless for most of us.
It may come as a surprise to most people, but diagnosis is not the hard part of medicine. Oh, sure, there are the occasional wierdies like the one in the article (and then I'd love to have the program), but mostly the diagnosis is either (a) not remotely in doubt, (b) irrelevant to the treatment (I don't care WHICH virus gave you diarrhea, I just care about hydration and mental status, and I don't need a computer program to help there), or (c) not something I need right now.
Clinical medicine is not mostly about diagnosis. It's mostly about disease management, triage, clinical efficiency, relationship building, and a huge dose of having to deal with every person that walks in the door, regardless of IQ, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis, and regardless of what I personally would like to do with them. Where excatly some peculiar expert system fits in with all that is something of a mystery to me.
(Oh, and surgical medicine is all of the above, plus time-critical eye-hand coordination, plus the routine inability to diagnose anything until you're in the OR, and the expert system is stone useless about then.)
New and better tools to solve problems that don't come up very often are interesting, but hardly something that will revolutionize medicine.
It's actually frequently worse than this. (I work currently with 8 doctors, four pediatricians, three internists, and one FP. I've worked with.... Problem two dozen over the last few years. What I say doesn't necessarily reflect on the ones I currently work with.)
Doctors have bad egos. Really bad. Many of them refuse to acknowledge the shear drudgery of their average daily workings. Like another poster said, every one of her kids visits were the same. Yeah, no kidding. 90-95% of the visits to our office are within a few categories. Colds, heart problems, diabetes, and checkups of various sorts. (There are a couple of others, but not many). Yet it is not at all unusual for doctors to rail at this sort of technology for even these cases. They cling to an absurd belief that each patient is different. That, to put it bluntly, is bullshit. Most patients are the same. This sort of tool would make the routine stuff go MUCH faster, and would help narrow down the weird stuff to where you are doing real tests to really differentiate between two different (or five, or whatever) diagnoses. Of course, when those weird cases are programmed...
Others in this topic have mentioned that docs embrace new tech. Kinda. They embrace new diagnostic tools that they can play with. But they are not as in love with decision making/helping tools. It undermines their education. It undermines the fact that most of them just have incredibly good 'wetware' databases.
I would also discount the actions/thoughts/ideas of younger docs. They frequently change by the time they hit their mid-30's. I've seen it before, I'll see it again. They love the idea when in school/fresh out, but come to believe in their own manifest godhood over time. No mere pile of silicon could be greater than I.
Another problem that I actually do sympathize with is that this is grounds for serious lawsuits. You could claim your doctor did nothing/wrong thing based on what some stupid machine said to do. Any rational person knows the doc shouldn't automatically trust what the machine spits out, but you and I also know that there will be at least one or two docs who, when these things gain wider use, will take an extra martini at lunch, counting on the machine to catch his stupidity, ignoring the fact that the man and machine have to work in concert.
Given the decision support software (the drug interaction databases are one example. The only problem is that EVERY reaction is typically flagged, so you need to know what's going on to interpret the data. Kinda like the discussion of SQUID and other NIDS the other day) I can forsee this making strides. But it will be some time. Twenty years? There are two scenarios where this will happen faster:
First, HMO's and other insurance companies use this software or something similar to find out how quickly their docs are zeroing in on diagnoses. If they find something that lets them diagnose in one visit instead of four, they'll use it. And that's good for them and good for the patient (cheaper, quicker, more accurate care). The other scenario is one wherein the government mandates this sort of testing. Likely it would manifest similar to the HMO model, and be used to cut costs of state-subsidized healthcare. Again, not a bad thing.
The better docs I have spoken with (and being raised by a physician, I've likely spoken with more physicians than the average slashdotter knows) wouldn't mind getting to deal with the tough or fringe cases. That is a challenge. That's interesting. Pap smears and kid shots are rote drudgery.
I hope we'll see this gain prevalence soon, but don't count on it. And, as the article says, docs are more likely than ANYONE to dig in their heels.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's interesting that most of the doctors responding are doing so much emothion and so little logic (and this one didn't even read the article carefully). Let's go through the rebuttal...
:). Despite the stereotype, many IT professionals (such as myself) are fit, healthy individuals who exercise regularly, drink plenty of water, and enjoy a proper diet. And those of us who stayed out of the dot-bomb industries (or got out early enough) can afford the best cardiologists money can buy, and don't have to whine and scream about it.
1) "Nothing Beats Pure Data" - Nobody that I'm aware of has posited this idea in the discussion, because it's absurd. Pure data on its own is fairly useless. It's the interpretation of the data that is important. What this tool seems to be designed to do is to make sure that the data is thoroughly collected and at least adequately corrolated against certain rules.
2) "I'd bet that a very small fraction of the people on the board would trust their mother's care to a database." Of course we wouldn't, but I would feel much better knowing that her condition was subjected to a thorough and complete analysis; this tool could probably assist in that. I'm sure my mom would agree - she's an experienced RN and regularly has to catch and help fix doctor's mistakes. This is not to say that doctors are incompetent (though some clearly are), but that they are human and fallible just like the rest of us.
3) "The great thing is that most people on this board are not representative of the world. The rest are not willing to forego a physician's care because of their superior intellect. Once the techie is in the emergency room with his twinkie-filled coronary arteries and a ten-ton elephant sitting on his chest - he'll be screaming for the best cardiologist money can buy." - This is an hysterical, stupid, cheap shot at eduacted technology professionals not even worthy of a response. But in the intrests of being thorough, I'm giving one anyway
4) "Wait, wait you have to fill out the database.. the computer is better, your HMO says so..." - I don't think it was ever suggested that this tool be used in situations where seconds count.
5) "FIX HEALTHCARE by fixing the mundane problems: [blah blah blah]" - Yes, insurance and tort reform are well-known needs in many industries, including healthacre (at least until they allow us to start hunting lawyers to thin out the herd, prevent overgrazing and starvation, protect the species, etc.). Money? Yeah, let's just throw even more than the current 1/7th of our GNP (at least here in the US) down this rathole...
6) "stop belly-aching about egotistical doctors, for every high-profile bastard physician there are twenty doctors who work very hard, destroy their own families and life to care for your families." Dude, you're not exactly helping your cause here. And most well-adjusted people don't go around bragging about destroying their families and their lives in pursuit of their careers. I would think that something that could potentially reduce the amount of work that doctors do would improve their families and their lives (unless said doctors are egotistical assholes and their families are better off not having them around).
7) "I hate hearing anecdotal bullshit that this database helped solve my rare sleep disorder that only 1 person in 5 million has. GREAT!" - I bet that girl who almost died would have been thrilled. But that's just me. For all I know she's a masochist.
8) Does it make healthcare faster, more accurate and above all *CHEAPER*.... doubt it.. - And if your reaction of unwarranted hysteria, fear, suspicion, hatred, and loathing of any new tool that may challenge your fragile ego is representitive of your profession, then we'll probably never know. It's a tool to assist in diagnostics. It doesn't trivialize the doctor's contribution to medicine. It doesn't remove you from the process. It doesn't steal your lunch out of the refridgerator. It doesn't make your dick smaller. It's here to help you. Give it an honest before you dismiss it.
And finally, my $.02. I'm a very healthy person (no ongoing medical issues other than bad eyesight). My limited experience with doctors has been mixed. My impression is that there is a bit of a correlation between doctors and experienced IT professionals: they both have to perform complex analysis with limited and often incomplete and inaccurate data. Some approach problems in a thorough and disciplined manner, some are highly intuitive (gifted, or just plain lucky), some are sloppy, rushed, and prone to snap judgements (that no one dare question), and some simply don't give a shit. Unfortunately, most that I've seen seem to fall in the last two categories. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I seriously doubt it.
Personally, I think the problems are mainly systemic - doctors are spending far too much time performing tasks better suited to nurses and nurse practitioners; they get burned out because they can't do their jobs properly, and thus the downward spiral begins. Most HMOs would be better managed by any four monkeys from our local zoo (of course, the San Diego Zoo has some exceptional monkeys, but still). The number of improvements that could be applied to the health care industry (and schools and universities feeding it) can probably only be expressed using some highly esoteric mathematics. But if something reasonable shows up, you should probably give it a shot.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana