Allan M. Block

In the September 2017 issue of JAMA Neurology, Louis R. Caplan, MD, wrote an excellent editorial, “Patient care is all about stories.” He notes that we all hear from patients about a recurrence of their previous stroke deficits, typically caused by infections, medications, or metabolic changes.

His point is that, telling the difference between true vascular events and recrudescence of old deficits can be difficult, but generally can be gleaned by taking a thorough history. He also notes, quite correctly, that the generic, automated features of modern charting systems often make it harder to get the details you need from previous visits.

Obviously, being able to accurately tell the difference between them can save health care costs, too. In a study in the same issue, Mehmet Topcuoglo, MD, and his colleagues discuss methodologies to differentiate between the causes of recrudescence of stroke-related deficits. Currently, the main approach is to admit patients to the hospital, do a knee-jerk repeat work-up with MRI, magnetic resonance angiogram, and echocardiogram (typically ordered before the neurologist has even been told of the consult) and then conclude that nothing has changed neurologically and that it was all caused by a bladder infection.

Surely, if we had an accurate way of telling the difference between them with a careful history, we’d save a lot of time and money on unnecessary hospital admissions. Right?

It sounds good in principle, but, sadly, the answer is “probably not.”

This is where the idealism of medicine meets the reality of its practice.

In the world of the emergency department, time and resources are limited. Emergency medicine physicians don’t have the luxury of taking a detailed neurologic history, nor are they trained (or expected) to be able to do so. Their job is to decide what is (and isn’t) life-threatening and who does (or doesn’t) need to be admitted.

But probably the main reason why Dr. Topcuoglo and his colleagues’ methodologies will never be implemented is defensive medicine. It’s a heck of lot easier and safer for any doctor – emergency medicine, hospitalist, and neurologist – to admit the patient and order more studies than it is to get served for malpractice and have to defend why you didn’t do that.

People can bemoan defensive medicine and its costs all they want. But, if you’ve been sued, you won’t care. You’ll order any test to protect yourself. Claiming that you followed a guideline from a journal, no matter how well researched it was, will likely be worthless the one time a stroke was missed. It’s easy for a plaintiff’s attorney to find someone to say you fell below the standard of care for doing so.

For an example of where this stands, here’s something from personal experience: One of my patients went to the emergency department for recrudescence of an old left hemiparesis, likely caused by a urinary tract infection. This wasn’t the first time it had happened. A head CT was stable while a urine analysis was abnormal. Because of my schedule, I wasn’t in a position to go see him in the ED in an expedient fashion. The ED physician was planning on admitting him and called to notify me. Knowing the history, I suggested sending him home with treatment for the UTI and to follow up with me the next day.

I thought that seemed reasonable, but the ED doctor didn’t. He said, “If you want to do that, then I am going to document that it’s on your instructions, that you are assuming all responsibility for care and outcome if a stroke is missed, and that I entirely disagree with your decision.”

I’m sure another neurologist might have said, “Okay, tell him to come in here tomorrow,” and hung up, but I really don’t have that kind of fortitude or desire for conflict with another physician. So I backed down and let the person on the scene make the decision. I saw the patient later that day as a consult, all his tests (except the urine analysis in the ED) were fine, and he went home the next day. I’m sure the bill was at least $50,000 (what really got paid is another matter), and defensive medicine had, for better or worse, won out over probability and reason.

Dr. Caplan, quite correctly, emphasizes the importance of taking a careful history, and I absolutely agree with him. Unfortunately, the lack of time in the ED setting, and fears driven by legal consequences, often make a good history irrelevant. Even when it’s done, there are other forces that push it to the background in making medical decisions.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing – it isn’t. But that’s the way it is right now in American medicine, and this aspect of the system shows no sign of changing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the September 2017 issue of JAMA Neurology, Louis R. Caplan, MD, wrote an excellent editorial, “Patient care is all about stories.” He notes that we all hear from patients about a recurrence of their previous stroke deficits, typically caused by infections, medications, or metabolic changes.

His point is that, telling the difference between true vascular events and recrudescence of old deficits can be difficult, but generally can be gleaned by taking a thorough history. He also notes, quite correctly, that the generic, automated features of modern charting systems often make it harder to get the details you need from previous visits.

Obviously, being able to accurately tell the difference between them can save health care costs, too. In a study in the same issue, Mehmet Topcuoglo, MD, and his colleagues discuss methodologies to differentiate between the causes of recrudescence of stroke-related deficits. Currently, the main approach is to admit patients to the hospital, do a knee-jerk repeat work-up with MRI, magnetic resonance angiogram, and echocardiogram (typically ordered before the neurologist has even been told of the consult) and then conclude that nothing has changed neurologically and that it was all caused by a bladder infection.

Surely, if we had an accurate way of telling the difference between them with a careful history, we’d save a lot of time and money on unnecessary hospital admissions. Right?

It sounds good in principle, but, sadly, the answer is “probably not.”

This is where the idealism of medicine meets the reality of its practice.

In the world of the emergency department, time and resources are limited. Emergency medicine physicians don’t have the luxury of taking a detailed neurologic history, nor are they trained (or expected) to be able to do so. Their job is to decide what is (and isn’t) life-threatening and who does (or doesn’t) need to be admitted.

But probably the main reason why Dr. Topcuoglo and his colleagues’ methodologies will never be implemented is defensive medicine. It’s a heck of lot easier and safer for any doctor – emergency medicine, hospitalist, and neurologist – to admit the patient and order more studies than it is to get served for malpractice and have to defend why you didn’t do that.

People can bemoan defensive medicine and its costs all they want. But, if you’ve been sued, you won’t care. You’ll order any test to protect yourself. Claiming that you followed a guideline from a journal, no matter how well researched it was, will likely be worthless the one time a stroke was missed. It’s easy for a plaintiff’s attorney to find someone to say you fell below the standard of care for doing so.

For an example of where this stands, here’s something from personal experience: One of my patients went to the emergency department for recrudescence of an old left hemiparesis, likely caused by a urinary tract infection. This wasn’t the first time it had happened. A head CT was stable while a urine analysis was abnormal. Because of my schedule, I wasn’t in a position to go see him in the ED in an expedient fashion. The ED physician was planning on admitting him and called to notify me. Knowing the history, I suggested sending him home with treatment for the UTI and to follow up with me the next day.

I thought that seemed reasonable, but the ED doctor didn’t. He said, “If you want to do that, then I am going to document that it’s on your instructions, that you are assuming all responsibility for care and outcome if a stroke is missed, and that I entirely disagree with your decision.”

I’m sure another neurologist might have said, “Okay, tell him to come in here tomorrow,” and hung up, but I really don’t have that kind of fortitude or desire for conflict with another physician. So I backed down and let the person on the scene make the decision. I saw the patient later that day as a consult, all his tests (except the urine analysis in the ED) were fine, and he went home the next day. I’m sure the bill was at least $50,000 (what really got paid is another matter), and defensive medicine had, for better or worse, won out over probability and reason.

Dr. Caplan, quite correctly, emphasizes the importance of taking a careful history, and I absolutely agree with him. Unfortunately, the lack of time in the ED setting, and fears driven by legal consequences, often make a good history irrelevant. Even when it’s done, there are other forces that push it to the background in making medical decisions.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing – it isn’t. But that’s the way it is right now in American medicine, and this aspect of the system shows no sign of changing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the September 2017 issue of JAMA Neurology, Louis R. Caplan, MD, wrote an excellent editorial, “Patient care is all about stories.” He notes that we all hear from patients about a recurrence of their previous stroke deficits, typically caused by infections, medications, or metabolic changes.

His point is that, telling the difference between true vascular events and recrudescence of old deficits can be difficult, but generally can be gleaned by taking a thorough history. He also notes, quite correctly, that the generic, automated features of modern charting systems often make it harder to get the details you need from previous visits.

Obviously, being able to accurately tell the difference between them can save health care costs, too. In a study in the same issue, Mehmet Topcuoglo, MD, and his colleagues discuss methodologies to differentiate between the causes of recrudescence of stroke-related deficits. Currently, the main approach is to admit patients to the hospital, do a knee-jerk repeat work-up with MRI, magnetic resonance angiogram, and echocardiogram (typically ordered before the neurologist has even been told of the consult) and then conclude that nothing has changed neurologically and that it was all caused by a bladder infection.

Surely, if we had an accurate way of telling the difference between them with a careful history, we’d save a lot of time and money on unnecessary hospital admissions. Right?

It sounds good in principle, but, sadly, the answer is “probably not.”

This is where the idealism of medicine meets the reality of its practice.

In the world of the emergency department, time and resources are limited. Emergency medicine physicians don’t have the luxury of taking a detailed neurologic history, nor are they trained (or expected) to be able to do so. Their job is to decide what is (and isn’t) life-threatening and who does (or doesn’t) need to be admitted.

But probably the main reason why Dr. Topcuoglo and his colleagues’ methodologies will never be implemented is defensive medicine. It’s a heck of lot easier and safer for any doctor – emergency medicine, hospitalist, and neurologist – to admit the patient and order more studies than it is to get served for malpractice and have to defend why you didn’t do that.

People can bemoan defensive medicine and its costs all they want. But, if you’ve been sued, you won’t care. You’ll order any test to protect yourself. Claiming that you followed a guideline from a journal, no matter how well researched it was, will likely be worthless the one time a stroke was missed. It’s easy for a plaintiff’s attorney to find someone to say you fell below the standard of care for doing so.

For an example of where this stands, here’s something from personal experience: One of my patients went to the emergency department for recrudescence of an old left hemiparesis, likely caused by a urinary tract infection. This wasn’t the first time it had happened. A head CT was stable while a urine analysis was abnormal. Because of my schedule, I wasn’t in a position to go see him in the ED in an expedient fashion. The ED physician was planning on admitting him and called to notify me. Knowing the history, I suggested sending him home with treatment for the UTI and to follow up with me the next day.

I thought that seemed reasonable, but the ED doctor didn’t. He said, “If you want to do that, then I am going to document that it’s on your instructions, that you are assuming all responsibility for care and outcome if a stroke is missed, and that I entirely disagree with your decision.”

I’m sure another neurologist might have said, “Okay, tell him to come in here tomorrow,” and hung up, but I really don’t have that kind of fortitude or desire for conflict with another physician. So I backed down and let the person on the scene make the decision. I saw the patient later that day as a consult, all his tests (except the urine analysis in the ED) were fine, and he went home the next day. I’m sure the bill was at least $50,000 (what really got paid is another matter), and defensive medicine had, for better or worse, won out over probability and reason.

Dr. Caplan, quite correctly, emphasizes the importance of taking a careful history, and I absolutely agree with him. Unfortunately, the lack of time in the ED setting, and fears driven by legal consequences, often make a good history irrelevant. Even when it’s done, there are other forces that push it to the background in making medical decisions.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing – it isn’t. But that’s the way it is right now in American medicine, and this aspect of the system shows no sign of changing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.