Patients Demand: 'Give Us Our Damned Medical Records'

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by leftystrat

Which part of electronic medical records sounds good to people?

Probably the part where most computers containing medical records are connected to a hospital-specific inTRAnet, not inTERnet. Big difference.

They'll not only get hacked, they'll be used against you for marketing and insurance.

(moreso)

Originally posted by leftystrat

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by leftystrat

Which part of electronic medical records sounds good to people?

Probably the part where most computers containing medical records are connected to a hospital-specific inTRAnet, not inTERnet. Big difference.

They'll not only get hacked, they'll be used against you for marketing and insurance.

(moreso)

Hacking a hospital's intranet would be the equivalent of snatching a stack of charts of the nurses' station. Sure, it's possible, I suppose, but the likelihood very low, as it's not worth the risk. If an insurance company were caught using that information to affect rates, they would be raked over the coals. In fact, in the last ten years, we have passed at least oen bill preventing any information gleaned from a genetic test from affecting insurance in any way.

Next irrational fear?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Hacking a hospital's intranet would be the equivalent of snatching a stack of charts of the nurses' station. Sure, it's possible, I suppose, but the likelihood very low, as it's not worth the risk. If an insurance company were caught using that information to affect rates, they would be raked over the coals. In fact, in the last ten years, we have passed at least oen bill preventing any information gleaned from a genetic test from affecting insurance in any way.

Next irrational fear?

Don't be rude - it's not becoming.

It will not be one hospital. Targets get hacked for a variety of reasons. Weekly we read about network security breaches. If you consolidate data like this, it will bite you in the buttocks.

Glad to hear we're attempting legislation. Just remember who has the deeper pockets.

In a small town I am sure there are tons of gossips who would LOVE to get ahold of a handfull of medical records.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

I spent about ten years looking for what was wrong with me.. not only having to fight the disease but fighting the charactor missinformation written in my records. I could not find a doctor to give me a genuine 2nd or 3rd opinion as they'd read what had been written about me previously, take all my opinions with a gran of salt and dismiss them.

It never crossed your mind that they agreed with the first opinion?

Yes it did.. which means that they were also miss-diganosing me. I doubt that occured to you when you asked me that.. I believe they read the doctors previous notes and took those into account when assessing me.

A doctor CAN perform any test you or they like, assuming the patient is willing to pay for it out of pocket. Most doctors are reluctant to do random and extraneous tests because insurance companies will not pay for it, not because the doctor is out to get you.

When they fail to find a disagnosis and just decide the patient has nothing wrong with them that is malpractice. They should keep looking.

The tests I asked for were not random or extraneous either.. the symptoms were there to follow up. I also did end up paying for them myself which costs me a small fortune but it was worth it.

I knew tests for her to do as I had to study for myself as no doctor would help me. My point is if they had've believed me in the first place my disease would not have advanced so far and I could've had it treated earlier with less permament damage. Why wasn't it?

Because doctors are humans, too. Some diseases are remarkably hard to detect. I'm very glad you were able to get the tests taken care of and start therapy.

And here is where the problem lies. I realise they are human too.. but sometimes they do not which is sometimes why they decide the problem must be the patient's judgement and not their own.

However, I would be very curious as to whether you went to several family practitioners, or if you went to a specialist?

Before a doctor sends someone to a specialist they need to pinpoint a specialty. I had to study this myself before I could tell them where to send me. I should not have had to that is the doctors job.

You are getting a little bit too personal now do not ask me to qualify my experiences.

because some ignorant doctor couldn't find out what was wrong with me and instead of recognising his own failings and referring me to a specialist he arrogently decided it was all in my head and wrote it down for all future doctors to read.

Did you try the treatment that doctor offered?

Are you kidding? I had already said this occured over TEN YEARS so of course I did! Your question is full of assumptions.. otherwise you would not have asked it.

I did answer your other questions but then just deleted them after reading this as it changed the context of them. Do not ask me to justify myself sir you are out of line.

It's called "combative patient appeasement" and we all learn it in medical school. If you have a history of stonewalling us, then you ask for something that won't hurt you, then why nto just let you have it so you'll be happy and more likely to follow our treatment?

I was NOT stone walling them and resent the insinuation. My actions proved their diagnosis wrong and they were probably afraid of getting sued. I did indeed try it their way and it almost killed me (didn't I already say that..?) and I ended up having to bully the doctor into tests which turned out to reveal exactly what the medical problem was. Their treatment of giving me drugs I did not need or sending me home to wait it out till next time did nothing apart from making it worse.

Do not ask me to reveal anymore private medical information. I shared my story and you just asked me (indirectly) to prove it wasn't my own fault.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Yes it did.. which means that they were also miss-diganosing me. I doubt that occured to you when you asked me that..

I believe they read the doctors previous notes and took those into account when assessing me.

It's certainly possible that a misdiagnosis was made (it wouldn't be the first time). I'm still curious as to why the physicians were so certain they had nailed the diagnosis to the point that you were coming to them for ten years with no improvement, despite therapy, and without trying other treatments. This is what makes me think there is more to this story, which you aren't sharing.

When they fail to find a disagnosis and just decide the patient has nothing wrong with them that is malpractice. They should keep looking.

Well, now you've changed your story. Was it a misdiagnosis or NO diagnosis? There's quiet a bit of difference. If the doctor assumed it was psychosomatic and it wasn't, then that is gross negligence, I agree. However, if the doctor felt it was disease X and it ended up being disease Y, that's a different issue entirely, though still most likely a result of bad medical practice.

The tests I asked for were not random or extraneous either.. the symptoms were there to follow up. I also did end up paying for them myself which costs me a small fortune but it was worth it.

And what reason did the physician give you for not following up on the symptoms with those tests? This is why I think there is more to the story you aren't divulging, merely to poo-poo a doctor and demonstrate that you "showed him".

Before a doctor sends someone to a specialist they need to pinpoint a specialty. I had to study this myself before I could tell them where to send me. I should not have had to that is the doctors job.

Not true. If I have a patient that is spiking a fever and I have NO clue why, I will absolutely have an infectious disease consult examine them, despite the fact that the source could be within the specialities of infectious disease, oncology, or hematology. There is always a good starting point for specialist referral, even if you don't know exactly what the root cause of a problem is. If the ID doc can't figure it out, then it may not be an ID problem, and I'll ask for a oncology consult, and so on. To say that you have to know what the problem is in order to get a specialist referral shows a true lack of understanding of the medical field.

Are you kidding? I had already said this occured over TEN YEARS so of course I did! Your question is full of assumptions.. otherwise you would not have asked it.

I've seen patients for five or so years who tell me at every visit that they don't take the medicine they prescribed because either they don't like, they didn't feel like it, or whatever reason. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for me to ask if you tried the treatment, despite the length of your condition. There were no assumptions behind the question, I was just curious if you had tried the offered therapy and if it had been effective at all, or not. You seem very defensive about my questioning, why is that?

I was NOT stone walling them and resent the insinuation.

I don't believe I ever said you were, I was explaining a common technique used in the clinic when dealing with difficult patients, either due to a hard diagnosis or the patient's personality. It could explain why the doctors now seem so nice to you.

My actions proved their diagnosis wrong and they were probably afraid of getting sued.

Unlikely. As long as the doctors show reasonable cause for their diagnosis, they are untouchable in court, even if the diagnosis was wrong. Everyone makes bad calls from time to time, even in medicine unfortunately.

I did indeed try it their way and it almost killed me (didn't I already say that..?) and I ended up having to bully the doctor into tests which turned out to reveal exactly what the medical problem was. Their treatment of giving me drugs I did not need or sending me home to wait it out till next time did nothing apart from making it worse.

And what did the physician tell you after their therapy "almost killed you"? If they didn't realize there was a problem and switch to another therapy or reconsider their diagnosis, then clearly you have a terrible doctor. I've never heard of a physician giving a treatment, watching a patient deteriorate to the point of mortality, and then continuing to push the drug anyways. If what you're saying is true and you haven't left any critical information out, then you truly have a case against the physician in question. However, exceptions don't disprove the rule, so a handful of bad doctors amongst a population numbering hundreds of thousands is little cause for concern. There are bad cops, bad teachers, bad pilots, bad soldiers, bad everything. Does that make all of those people in each profession bad, or does it make those INDIVIDUALS bad?

Do not ask me to reveal anymore private medical information. I shared my story and you just asked me (indirectly) to prove it wasn't my own fault.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by riley]

You have stated several times that you are unwilling to provide further information. I don't know why you are so defensive about this. I was simply asking point-blank questions about the treatment efficacy. I also don't know why you included the portion about proving it "wasn't your own fault", unless that is some sort of psychological slip on your part.

[edit on 1/20/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by leftystrat

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Hacking a hospital's intranet would be the equivalent of snatching a stack of charts of the nurses' station. Sure, it's possible, I suppose, but the likelihood very low, as it's not worth the risk. If an insurance company were caught using that information to affect rates, they would be raked over the coals. In fact, in the last ten years, we have passed at least oen bill preventing any information gleaned from a genetic test from affecting insurance in any way.

Next irrational fear?

Don't be rude - it's not becoming.

It will not be one hospital. Targets get hacked for a variety of reasons. Weekly we read about network security breaches. If you consolidate data like this, it will bite you in the buttocks.

Glad to hear we're attempting legislation. Just remember who has the deeper pockets.

I'm not sure how I was rude, I was merely pointing out the reality of the situation. Most large hospitals have been using electronic record systems for about a decade now, and I've only heard of maybe two or three incidents of information being accessed illegally.

Do you honestly think that the minimal risk of information getting out there outweight the fact that medication errors along have dropped 50% in hospitals using electronic records? I know I personally would rather my patient get the right type and dose of medication, even if there was a less than one tenth of one percent chance of someone knowing what condition he is being treated for and when he was admitted.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by riley

Yes it did.. which means that they were also miss-diganosing me. I doubt that occured to you when you asked me that..

I believe they read the doctors previous notes and took those into account when assessing me.

It's certainly possible that a misdiagnosis was made (it wouldn't be the first time).

Wow. Dear I am not asking you if something may have happened or not. I am telling you what happened.

I'm still curious as to why the physicians were so certain they had nailed the diagnosis to the point that you were coming to them for ten years with no improvement, despite therapy, and without trying other treatments. This is what makes me think there is more to this story, which you aren't sharing.

Again.. I already said I would not go into extra detail about my private medical business. You ignored that and are now pressing the matter which comes off as interrogating. Pull your head in.

When they fail to find a disagnosis and just decide the patient has nothing wrong with them that is malpractice. They should keep looking.

Well, now you've changed your story. Was it a misdiagnosis or NO diagnosis?

WTF? Changed my story??

THAT is interrogating me. I have not change my story or contradicted myself.. I just have not gone into specifics as this thread is NOT about my private medical history.

I do not have to justify myself to you and do not appreciate being accused of lieing. I was just sharing my experiences in regard to the OP and my response was sufficent and I did not feel comfortable going into further detail. Do NOT start trying to find holes in my story. For me to answer your questions would mean going in to personal specifics and great detail about my private medical business which I am not willing to do to some random guy on a PUBLIC internet forum.

I don't care if you are a doctor.. you might be a quack. I could start indirectly asking if you've ever been found negligent but for me to start interrogating YOU over YOUR personal history and to demand you start posting personal information in order to prove your own inncocence would be very innapropriate and insulting yet that is basically what you have asked of me. Understand? Do not ask me to devuldge more about my private medical business it is not relevent to the OP.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by riley]

Please discuss the topic and not the personal information of each other, even if the intentions may be well placed.

Thank you.

I do not have to justify myself to you and do not appreciate being accused of lieing. I was just sharing my experiences in regard to the OP and my response was sufficent and I did not feel comfortable going into further detail. Do NOT start trying to find holes in my story. For me to answer your questions would mean going in to personal specifics and great detail about my private medical business which I am not willing to do to some random guy on a PUBLIC internet forum.

I don't care if you are a doctor.. you might be a quack. I could start indirectly asking if you've ever been found negligent but for me to start interrogating YOU over YOUR personal history and to demand you start posting personal information in order to prove your own inncocence would be very innapropriate and insulting yet that is bascially what you have done to me. Understand? Do not ask me to devuldge more about my private medical business it is not relevent to the OP.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by riley]

You are using vague details from a personal experience to defame an entire field, one which I am a part of. It is incredibly irresponsible, immature, and plain old ignorant of you to offer bits and pieces of some experience, and then immediately offer it as evidence that doctors, as a whole, are failures. What you have done is one of the most despicable acts of gross generalization and assumptive logic that I have ever seen on these boards.

If you truly had a problem with your doctor, I empathize with you and wish you all the best in getting better. However, having one, even a half dozen, bad experiences with a handful of physicians is by NO MEANS a reason to discount an entire profession, especially when there are hundreds of schools offering hundreds of unique methods of teaching curricula. Your blanket assignment of guilt to ALL doctors for your problem is disgusting, and no different than me assigning blame to ALL police for a rude experience with an officer I had. Plain and simple silly.

And for the record, no, I have never been accused of negligence, just as most doctors have never been accused. It is a small group of unskilled physicians who often have this problem, and I would assume your doctor is part of that group. Again, for you to assume that all doctors MUST behave like the few you saw is the height of ignorance.

Keep in mind, the motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance".

[edit on 1/20/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

This is the last warning.

Further Off Topic posts discussing each other will be removed.

Originally posted by ANNED

some of the doctor shorthand i have seen.

[snip]

CLL - chronic Low Life
COPD - Chronic Old Persons Disease (unwell, no specific cause)
[snip]

Just thought I'd mention that I've seen these two abbreviations in medical contexts also. CLL is "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" and COPD is "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease".

Not sure where this list of supposed acronyms came from, but are you sure about the meanings you're attributing to them?