In other news, I went to the doctor today in hopes of diagnosing my recurring chest pains. A few lab tests and an EKG later, I found that Kaiser doctors are lame. They ask you a few questions, refer to the Kaiser software system to categorize your symptoms into whatever group/disease they deem necessary...print a description of what they think your ailment is and BAM, they're done.
Costochondritis. I've found solace in the fact that my EKG was clear, so at least "the ticker" is still functioning properly. I didn't really expect the problem to be anything serious considering my awesomely healthy lifestyle (that consists of potato chips for dinner). But I'd feel more confident in the diagnosis if I was given an explanation by the doctor, not by a piece of software. And also if he hadn't rolled his eyes at me when I told him what I was in for.
Which leads to the question: if you have a choice of being diagnosed by a person (with flaws of course) or a computer which can technically be more accurate based on the inputs (but still has its own limitations), which would you choose? I choose humans. At least they give you candy when you leave.
The greatest part of the experience? Back when I was volunteering at Grady I watched an EKG performed on an elderly lady, who I've joked about on multiple occasions for unknowingly flashing me during the procedure. After finding myself in her shoes today, I feel like a complete ass for mocking her. I've spent so much time trying to figure out what makes a good physician. Little did I know that the answer may come from putting yourself in the patient's position.
Another funny part:
Dr: "Do you have any stress in your life right now?"
Me: "Nope."
Dr: "What do you do?"
Me: "I'm a scientist and I'm in grad school."
Dr: "Ok so you DO have a significant amount of stress in your life."
Me: "Yeeeeesss?"
What's stressful to other people is nothing to me anymore. I'm immune/desensitized...so I don't know how to stop.
2 comments:
if you have a choice of being diagnosed by a person (with flaws of course) or a computer which can technically be more accurate based on the inputs (but still has its own limitations), which would you choose?
Statistical Prediction Rules More Accurate Than Experts. - "So robust is this finding that we might call it The Golden Rule of Predictive Modeling: When based on the same evidence, the predictions of SPRs are more reliable than the predictions of human experts." How about a compromise: I would prefer a doctor using a computer. :-)
I like that compromise (but only because the hopes for candy are still there :)
Post a Comment