July 4th, 2011 by ChristopherChangMD in Health Tips
No Comments »
One June 20, 2011, NPR aired a great story about how a person may not “see” a person getting beat up on the side of a jogging path when they are focused on a task (pursuing another jogger)… even if they pass RIGHT BY THE FIGHT!!!
In fact, only a third of the subjects reported seeing this mock fight when the experiment was conducted at night. Even more surprisingly, broad daylight didn’t improve the statistics (only 40% noticed the fight).
Though the situation and circumstances do not exactly correspond, there is a lesson to be learned here that applies to a medical visit.
As an ENT, I often see patients for a very specific complaint…
“My right ear hurts.”
“I have a bad cough.”
No matter what the complaint, unless it is for a specific task (there is earwax… can you remove it), I most always still do a complete ear, nose, and throat exam no matter the complaint.
Why??? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Fauquier ENT Blog*
June 28th, 2011 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
2 Comments »
I’ve often heard physicians say that “the history is 90% of the diagnosis.” In other words, they can usually determine the underlying cause of a patient’s problem just by listening to their account of how it evolved. The physical exam is merely to confirm the diagnosis, and is often cursory, limited, or ignored.
I believe that the physical exam is far more important than it seems – and I learned this during my recent oral medical specialty board examination. Although I have been sworn to secrecy regarding the content of the test questions, I will share an epiphany that I had during the exam.
The examiners’ job is to describe a patient and then ask the examinee what else she’d like to know and what she’d do next. With each description, I found myself struggling to visualize the patient – wishing I could see their face and hear their tone of their voice as they described their condition. I hadn’t realized that so much of my clinical judgement was based on laying eyes on a patient – I needed to see if they were in pain, if they were straining to breathe, if their skin was pasty or pale, if they were disconnected and potentially drug-seeking, if they were fidgety, if they were articulate, forgetful, or well-groomed. All of these subtle cues were gone. I was left staring at the examiner – who himself couldn’t describe the patient more fully because he was to stick to the script, reading verbatim from a prepared list of signs and symptoms. Read more »
May 14th, 2011 by Iltifat Husain, M.D. in News, Opinion
No Comments »
Recently, the Wall Street Journal did a great piece on how mobile technology is being used in medicine. They looked at the major avenues of use — from the hospital to personal to emergency care settings.
They gave an example of how a cardiologist has stopped carrying a stethoscope, and now just uses mobile ultrasound, a modality we have highlighted numerous times in the past.
Dr. Topol, a cardiologist in San Diego, carries with him instead a portable ultrasound device roughly the size of a cellphone. When he puts it to a patient’s chest, the device allows him to peer directly into the heart. The patient looks, too; together, they check out the muscle, the valves, the rhythm, the blood flow.
“Why would I listen to ‘lub dub’ when I can see everything?” Dr. Topol says. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at iMedicalApps*
March 17th, 2011 by Shadowfax in Health Tips, True Stories
No Comments »
I’ve remarked in the past how rarely I ever learn anything useful from physical exam. It’s one of those irritating things about medicine — we spent all that time in school learning arcane details of the exam, esoteric maneuvers like pulsus paradoxus, comparing pulses, Rovsing’s sign and the like. But in the modern era, it seems like about half the diagnoses are made by history and the other half are made by ancillary testing. Some people interpreted my comments to mean I don’t do an exam, or endorse a half-assed exam, which I do not. I always do an exam, as indicated by the presenting condition. I just don’t often learn much from it. But I always do it.
The other day, for example, I saw this elderly lady who was sent in for altered mental status. There wasn’t much (or indeed, any) history available. She was from some sort of nursing home, and they sent in essentially no information beyond a med list. The patient was non-verbal, but it wasn’t clear if she was chronically demented and non-verbal or whether this was a drastic change in baseline. So I went in to see her. I stopped at the doorway. “Uh-oh. She don’t look so good,” I commented to a nurse. As an aside, this “she don’t look so good” is maybe 90% of my job — the reflexive assessment of sick/not sick, which I suppose is itself a component of physical exam. But I digress. Her vitals were OK, other than some tachycardia*. Her color, flaccidity and apathy, however, really all screamed “sick” to me. Of course, the exam was otherwise nonfocal. Groans to pain, withdraws but does not localize or follow instructions. Seems symmetric on motor exam, from what I can elicit. Belly soft, lungs clear. Looks dry. No rash. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
January 24th, 2011 by Lucy Hornstein, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
A reader requests:
Can you do a post on what procedures constitute a thorough physical, in your opinion? I haven’t had one in several years and thinking of making an appointment now. The last doctor I went to didn’t even listen to my heart or go though the motions with feeling my belly and that stuff. And of the last three doctors I went to, I realized they didn’t bring up my immunization records. Is this usually left for the patients to bring up on their own?
Good question. What exactly is a physical? Does it include blood work? What about an EKG? And a cardiac stress test? Is an “executive physical” an orgy of “more is better,” previously paid lavishly, really better than a “camp physical?”
Here’s the thing: There is no such thing as a “complete physical examination.” There are literally hundreds of different maneuvers and procedures that encompass various aspects of physical diagnosis. Performing every last one of these on even a single patient would not only take many hours, it would be a colossal waste of time.
A “physical” is a misnomer. The clinical portion of a medical workup is more correctly termed the “history and physical.” Of the two, everyone agrees that the history — information elicited from the patient, sometimes from family members or other medical records — is far more likely to yield useful information. It is the information gleaned from the history that guides the physical.
Knee pain? The history should include mechanism of injury, and physical exam should evaluate for McMurry, Lachman, and drawer signs, among other maneuvers. Bellyache? Need to know about associated symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, stool pattern, flatus, and the exam better include careful auscultation (listening) for bowel sounds and palpation (feeling) for masses, fluid, possible shifting dullness, plus eliciting any guarding or rebound, and probably a rectal exam looking for blood. It makes no sense to use a tuning fork for Rinne and Weber tests to evaluate different kinds of hearing loss on someone with heartburn. Likewise, evaluating the debilitating heel pain of plantar fasciitis does not require listening to the lungs. I trust you get the idea.
The question appears to be about the “routine physical” in the absence of any specific medical concern. A more accurate term for this is a “preventive service” visit, for which there are specific guidelines. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Dinosaur*
One June 20, 2011, NPR aired a great story about how a person may not “see” a person getting beat up on the side of a jogging path when they are focused on a task (pursuing another jogger)… even if they pass RIGHT BY THE FIGHT!!!
