Dr. Google Mug

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Got to get me one of these mugs!

 

Just googled it and they are available on a few sites. Xmas gift?:santa:

 

Why are doctors seemingly so intimidated by search engines? I've written this before, but it bears repeating...I would much rather have a patient that is concerned enough about their own health issues that they are motivated to read about their symptoms and possible topics of discussion. Typically, a first office visit requires at least 15 minutes of one-on-one questions and answers. Their previous research usually cuts the time down to focus on the problem at hand, because of their cursory investigation has "brought them up to speed" on the various differential diagnoses.

 

You have a valid point there, drhunt1. Yes, there are tendencies for people who study their illnesses on google to self-medicate or self-treat and not end up seeking professional help, but I believe still a huge percentage of these people will still end up going to the doctor anyway, either because they tried self-treating and didn't work, or they still have this high-regard or confidence on the deeper knowledge of doctors.

Also, like you pointed out, it will bring them up to speed. It's smarter to know about your enemies first before charging into battle, right?

 

Thanks. I'm of the opinion that those patients whom are motivated enough to research their maladies, typically are easier to educate than those that don't, for no other reason than they are somewhat familiar with the anatomy. In so many cases, I've had to take an inordinate amount of time re-educating patients that have received misleading information from other physicians and/or colleagues. Further...someone whom has researched their problem first, then offers their perspective based on the information they've read, at the very least indicates that they are eager to learn. Information is a powerful thing in medicine. Misinformation is...well...misleading. But at least the patient has seen the pics, is somewhat familiar with the nomenclature and that saves me time. Knowing that a patient is motivated to getting better is always a plus. Thus, I don't view the IT as necessarily a bad thing.

 

That's the problem being the ~World's No 1 Podiatrist ~ Matt; most of your time is spent correcting the crap other doctors and colleagues have misled and lied to your patients over the years. They must be so grateful - and their old doctors too. You must get plenty social invites with all the great work you do and yet still have time to sit down and share your groundbreaking theories with colleagues worldwide. What a man. What do your clients call you?

 

Master? Vizier? The Great? Haha. But anyway, I wonder how some doctors would seemingly have misleading explanations while others don't. Are they not all supposed to be doctors and would've had at least almost the same concept? Especially if they came from the same discipline? I would understand if the other doctors are sort of practicing a different discipline, naturally they would have differing perceptions about illnesses. That happens to all professions anyway.

 

Were you visited by three ghosts last night, Mark? I appreciate the acknowledgement, but at this time, I cannot accept your position in the heirarchy.

Merry Christmas.

 

You've no idea, Matt - I'm visited by ghosts all the time; each of them infinitely more interesting and learned that yourself! But I suppose that wouldn't be difficult..

Lang may yer lum reek. :drinks

 

Great question, Bernard...so bear with me in my answer. I have no idea why different docs use different explanations for a certain pathology...but they do. Is it because they, themselves, are misinformed, or is it to offer an oversimplified explanation in order to move on to the next patient? I think it is more from the latter category...but that's my own speculation. If one to collect the treatment protocols from, say, 5 different Podiatrists on their treatment of verruca plantaris, one might get five different answers. If one were to survey the explanation for "plantar fasciitis", one might get many different explanations, with few of them including the description of acute/chronic plantar calcaneal periostitis...which is my explanation to the hundreds of patients we see with this malady. For years, the orthopedic surgeons here in the States has a website called Heel spur.com. It took me a long time to re-educate these patients that the spur is not the source of their pain. General Practitioners and Radiologists alike, are focused on the presense, (or absence), of a "heel spur" in order to determine the source of the problem. 99% of the patients that limp into my office do NOT have "heel spur" pain, nor do they have true plantar fasciitis.

Another example is the one I addressed in my article published 8 months ago on Growing Pains in Children and RLS in adults. For 192 years, doctors have been telling their patients' parents that "little Johnny or Suzie" will grow out of the problem, because the long bones are growing faster than the soft tissue, (periosteum?), can keep up with. Never mind that we don't witness growing pains in the arms...that is just a minor problem, as the doctor leaves the room headed for his next patient. This insanity continues today, 192 years later, even from some of our colleagues. While some, such as Mark Russell above, wants to portray this as a "theory", I'm well beyond that in my mind, this is no longer a theory. I have dozens upon dozens of patients successfully treated that are appreciative of the effort I made and the information I give them...because it works...each and every time. Their presentations only slightly vary...minor departures from a common theme...so much so that I'm now able to predict and accurately speculate on the patients' past medical history in re to this condition.

Re-educating patients can be even more time consuming than simply giving accurate information based upon the best evidence and personal experience. Dealing with bad advice from fellow practitioners is just one example.

 

Great question, Bernard...so bear with me in my answer. I have no idea why different docs use different explanations for a certain pathology...but they do. Is it because they, themselves, are misinformed, or is it to offer an oversimplified explanation in order to move on to the next patient? I think it is more from the latter category...but that's my own speculation. If one was to collect the treatment protocols from, say, 5 different Podiatrists on their treatment of verruca plantaris, one might get five different answers. If one were to survey the explanation for "plantar fasciitis", one might get many different explanations, with few of them including the description of acute/chronic plantar calcaneal periostitis...which is my explanation to the hundreds of patients we see with this malady. For years, the orthopedic surgeons here in the States has a website called Heel spur.com. It took me a long time to re-educate these patients that the spur is not the source of their pain. General Practitioners and Radiologists alike, are focused on the presense, (or absence), of a "heel spur" in order to determine the source of the problem. 99% of the patients that limp into my office do NOT have "heel spur" pain, nor do they have true plantar fasciitis.

Another example is the one I addressed in my article published 8 months ago on Growing Pains in Children and RLS in adults. For 192 years, doctors have been telling their patients' parents that "little Johnny or Suzie" will grow out of the problem, because the long bones are growing faster than the soft tissue, (periosteum?), can keep up with. Never mind that we don't witness growing pains in the arms...that is just a minor problem, as the doctor leaves the room headed for his next patient. This insanity continues today, 192 years later, even from some of our colleagues. While some, such as Mark Russell above, wants to portray this as a "theory", I'm well beyond that in my mind, this is no longer a theory. I have dozens upon dozens of patients successfully treated that are appreciative of the effort I made and the information I give them...because it works...each and every time. Their presentations only slightly vary...minor departures from a common theme...so much so that I'm now able to predict and accurately speculate on the patients' past medical history in re to this condition.

Re-educating patients can be even more time consuming than simply giving accurate information based upon the best evidence and personal experience. Dealing with bad advice from fellow practitioners is just one example, and IMO, worse than IT search engines.