As we sat in our first lecture of the day, and our first real lecture of actual "doctor" things (how to take a patient history), I could not help but be caught up by a point that was made. More specifically, a comment about a point. We were discussing why one should always strive to do a "patient-centered" history. It is exactly what the name implies. As much as an awkward student-doctor can, we are to encourage the patient to tell their story and naturally explain everything about their problem or situation. Among other things (such as being more effective and generally making everyone feel better), this has been proven to be a faster method of interviewing. The lecturer, who I've enjoyed and still do, followed up this point by stating that it was a "good thing." As a physician, it's better for me from a business standpoint to see six patients in an hour instead of four, and if a patient-centered interview can do that then why not?
But no one asked the question (although I don't think in the middle of an already-running-late lecture was the best place to do so anyway), "Is this really the best way to do things?" Should we, as the ones who allegedly "run" the field of health care, choose to base our habits and practices from a fiscal standpoint? Even if we include the fact of it being faster and therefore a better business practice among the variety of other reasons- some altruistic and for the better of the patient- for choosing to practice in this manner, won't the aspect of money and payment always be creeping in the back of our heads?
I know this- like so many other things- stems from a very naive and elementary point of view, but can I really say it would be better for me to shed my idealistic view completely and work with the way things are, never questioning?
0 comments:
Post a Comment