The Diagnostic Process

Getting the right diagnosis is a key aspect of health care - it provides an explanation of a patient's health problem and informs subsequent health care decisions. The diagnostic process is a complex, collaborative activity that involves clinical reasoning and information gathering to determine a patient's health problem. According to Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, diagnostic errors-inaccurate or delayed diagnoses-persist throughout all settings of care and continue to harm an unacceptable number of patients. It is likely that most people will experience at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime, sometimes with devastating consequences. Diagnostic errors may cause harm to patients by preventing or delaying appropriate treatment, providing unnecessary or harmful treatment, or resulting in psychological or financial repercussions. The committee concluded that improving the diagnostic process is not only possible, but also represents a moral, professional, and public health imperative. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, a continuation of the landmark Institute of Medicine reports To Err Is Human (2000) and Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001), finds that diagnosis-and, in particular, the occurrence of diagnostic errorsâ€"has been largely unappreciated in efforts to improve the quality and safety of health care. Without a dedicated focus on improving diagnosis, diagnostic errors will likely worsen as the delivery of health care and the diagnostic process continue to increase in complexity. Just as the diagnostic process is a collaborative activity, improving diagnosis will require collaboration and a widespread commitment to change among health care professionals, health care organizations, patients and their families, researchers, and policy makers. The recommendations of Improving Diagnosis in Health Care contribute to the growing momentum for change in this crucial area of health care quality and safety.

This handbook describes the diagnostic process clearly and logically, aiding medical students and others who wish to improve their diagnostic performance and to learn more about the diagnostic process.

In pathology education within North America, there exists a wide gap in the pedagogy between medical school and residency. As a result, the pathology intern often comes into residency unprepared. Completely illustrated in color, this book lays the foundation of practical pathology and provides a scaffold on which to build a knowledge base. It includes basic introductory material and progresses through each organ system. Within each chapter, there is a brief review of salient normal histology, a discussion of typical specimen types, a strategic approach to the specimen, and a discussion of how the multitude of different diagnoses relate to each other.

This innovative introduction to patient encounters utilizes an evidence-based step-by-step process that teaches students how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients based on the clinical complaints they present. By applying this approach, students are able to make appropriate judgments about specific diseases and prescribe the most effective therapy. (Product description).

Technology assessment can lead to the rapid application of essential diagnostic technologies and prevent the wide diffusion of marginally useful methods. In both of these ways, it can increase quality of care and decrease the cost of health care. This comprehensive monograph carefully explores methods of and barriers to diagnostic technology assessment and describes both the rationale and the guidelines for meaningful evaluation. While proposing a multi-institutional approach, it emphasizes some of the problems involved and defines a mechanism for improving the evaluation and use of medical technology and essential resources needed to enhance patient care.

Many published books that comment on the medical model have been written by doctors, who assume that readers have the same knowledge of medicine, or by those who have attempted to discredit and attack the medical practice. Both types of book have tended to present diagnostic categories in medicine as universally scientifically valid examples of clear-cut diseases easily distinguished from each other and from health; with a fixed prognosis; and with a well-understood aetiology leading to disease-reversing treatments. These are contrasted with psychiatric diagnoses and treatments, which are described as unclear and inadequate in comparison. The Medical Model in Mental Health: An Explanation and Evaluation explores the overlap between the usefulness of diagnostic constructs (which enable prognosis and treatment decisions) and the therapeutic effectiveness of psychiatry compared with general medicine. The book explains the medical model and how it applies in mental health, assuming little knowledge or experience of medicine, and defends psychiatry as a medical practice.

Accurate diagnosis is the foundation of medical practice, but at the start of the diagnostic process, uncertainty is inevitable. The clinician's skills and cognitive attributes determine the quality of the initial differential diagnosis and thus the crucial first phases of investigation and treatment; mistakes are often self-propagating. Diagnostic error is a major cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality, and is the commonest reason for successful litigation. Risk and Reasoning in Clinical Diagnosis is an accessible and readable look at the diagnostic process. Dr. Cym Ryle presents the insights and concepts developed in cognitive psychology which have led to the consensus that in all domains human reasoning is primarily driven by unconscious, intuitive mechanisms; the contribution of structured, analytical thinking is variable and inconsistent. He notes that the risk of error is inseparable from these mechanisms. Dr. Ryle then develops a description of the diagnostic process which encompasses its form, strengths and fallibility, and illustrates this description with examples from his work as a general practitioner. He argues that improving diagnostic accuracy should be a priority, and that there is sufficient evidence to guide changes in medical training, in clinical practice, and in the culture and organisation of our institutions. He identifies specific, practical steps that can be taken by individual clinicians and by clinical teams, suggests priorities for action in our institutions, and considers the obstacles to progress.

An exposé on Big Pharma and the American healthcare system’s zeal for excessive medical testing, from a nationally recognized expert More screening doesn’t lead to better health—but can turn healthy people into patients. Going against the conventional wisdom reinforced by the medical establishment and Big Pharma that more screening is the best preventative medicine, Dr. Gilbert Welch builds a compelling counterargument that what we need are fewer, not more, diagnoses. Documenting the excesses of American medical practice that labels far too many of us as sick, Welch examines the social, ethical, and economic ramifications of a health-care system that unnecessarily diagnoses and treats patients, most of whom will not benefit from treatment, might be harmed by it, and would arguably be better off without screening. Drawing on 25 years of medical practice and research on the effects of medical testing, Welch explains in a straightforward, jargon-free style how the cutoffs for treating a person with “abnormal” test results have been drastically lowered just when technological advances have allowed us to see more and more “abnormalities,” many of which will pose fewer health complications than the procedures that ostensibly cure them. Citing studies that show that 10% of 2,000 healthy people were found to have had silent strokes, and that well over half of men over age sixty have traces of prostate cancer but no impairment, Welch reveals overdiagnosis to be rampant for numerous conditions and diseases, including diabetes, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, gallstones, abdominal aortic aneuryisms, blood clots, as well as skin, prostate, breast, and lung cancers. With genetic and prenatal screening now common, patients are being diagnosed not with disease but with “pre-disease” or for being at “high risk” of developing disease. Revealing the economic and medical forces that contribute to overdiagnosis, Welch makes a reasoned call for change that would save us from countless unneeded surgeries, excessive worry, and exorbitant costs, all while maintaining a balanced view of both the potential benefits and harms of diagnosis. Drawing on data, clinical studies, and anecdotes from his own practice, Welch builds a solid, accessible case against the belief that more screening always improves health care.