Patients "diagnosing themselves" through Internet

[Silver Lining]

I'm writing this thread based on a newspaper article I saw a while back. Apparently, more and more young people are researching their symptoms online and coming to doctor's visits better informed regarding the medical facts and knowledge of their cases.

On one level, this seems to be a clear positive: patients can find answers to simple medical questions on their own and give physicians/nurses/PAs more relevant information when they come in to their visit. In many cases, they may have read about different surgical options and have a cursory understanding of where their case may go before even setting foot in the office. In some cases, an unnecessary office visit could be skipped, or a necessary visit made which otherwise would not have been, because of information found online.

On the other hand, a patient could be resistant or reluctant to take a doctor's diagnosis (which obviously trumps any attempt to self-diagnose) because of the information he's read. Furthermore, s/he could have tunnel vision regarding the issue and be unwilling to listen to anything other than what s/he's researched. I can also see a patient being "too informed" as one who is likely to seek a second opinion.

I am not a medical expert and have never worked in the medical field. I write this topic to get the opinion of those of you who have treated patients clinically.

What is your opinion on patients who do online research about their condition before coming in? Have you found it overall positive, negative, or neutral in your care of them?

I welcome all intelligent and well-formed opinions, but opinions from those with experience in patient care are especially relevant.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GH253]

I have undiagnosed arthritis and I know what it is thanks to the internet.

 

[MedicalEngineerDoctor]

http://www.avalonmediasystem.org/blog-post/get-know-avalon-team-adam-hallett

haha

 

[Instatewaiter]

I'm writing this thread based on a newspaper article I saw a while back. Apparently, more and more young people are researching their symptoms online and coming to doctor's visits better informed regarding the medical facts and knowledge of their cases.

On one level, this seems to be a clear positive: patients can find answers to simple medical questions on their own and give physicians/nurses/PAs more relevant information when they come in to their visit. In many cases, they may have read about different surgical options and have a cursory understanding of where their case may go before even setting foot in the office. In some cases, an unnecessary office visit could be skipped, or a necessary visit made which otherwise would not have been, because of information found online.

On the other hand, a patient could be resistant or reluctant to take a doctor's diagnosis (which obviously trumps any attempt to self-diagnose) because of the information he's read. Furthermore, s/he could have tunnel vision regarding the issue and be unwilling to listen to anything other than what s/he's researched. I can also see a patient being "too informed" as one who is likely to seek a second opinion.

I am not a medical expert and have never worked in the medical field. I write this topic to get the opinion of those of you who have treated patients clinically.

What is your opinion on patients who do online research about their condition before coming in? Have you found it overall positive, negative, or neutral in your care of them?

I welcome all intelligent and well-formed opinions, but opinions from those with experience in patient care are especially relevant.

Sometimes it can be helpful but usually it just confuses and frightens the patient. They come in with some wacky diagnosis. It usually just wastes my time having to explain why it couldn't be whatever they think it is

 

[PercyMD]

I think the internet is very useful if you know how to use it in the right way. For health care, if you have symptoms and go online to research at the right website, it is possible for you to judge what the disease is and to decide whether or not to see a doctor. The problem is that the reliability of information on the net that you read.

 

[runnergal]

Apparent The Human Diagnosis Project .... years or decades down the road.... is expected to be available for patients.

They will be attempting to map every human problem/sx/complaint to the ICD codes it matches. People or physicians in developing, rural, underserved areas would be able to use this technology to diagnose themselves.... or atleast try to find an appropriate doctor ....
Atleast that is my interpretation ....

 

[Firegrove]

Personally I think it's very important a patient attempts to educate themselves and questions a doctor's heuristics. Ultimately, it allows a patient to make a more informed decision. The days of patients passively accepting a doctor's word are gone meaning physicians need to prepare themselves for a more progressive public.

 

[Apollyon]

Personally I think it's very important a patient attempts to educate themselves and questions a doctor's heuristics. Ultimately, it allows a patient to make a more informed decision. The days of patients passively accepting a doctor's word are gone meaning physicians need to prepare themselves for a more progressive public.

Yeah, but would you ask the guy selling you a pair of shoes how to rewire your house? The internet is virtually unregulated. Jenny McCarthy's claim to fame is that she looked good naked. Does that make her an authority on autism spectrum disorders? Patients may be more informed, but you are giving them entirely too much credit. What if the information they found was that 2 + 2 = 5? That is akin to what is available for free online. Just ask any oncologist how often people ask them if the new drug (like Opdivo) will work for their cancer, when they have melanoma or a sarcoma.

Whether you believe it or not, many (perhaps most) patients are not savvy consumers. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Firegrove]

Whether you believe it or not, many (perhaps most) patients are not savvy consumers. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You make fair examples on how it can be annoying or inconvenient for a patient to attempt to educate themselves but your adverseness to patient awareness is confusing. Do you have a non-hypothetical example for the bolded quote?

 

[Apollyon]

You make fair examples on how it can be annoying or inconvenient for a patient to attempt to educate themselves but your adverseness to patient awareness is confusing. Do you have a non-hypothetical example for the bolded quote?

"I have Lyme disease." "I have meningitis." These are two I've seen in the past 3 months. Neither one had it. Both got their information from WebMD.

"Adverseness to patient awareness" is a rather convoluted way of putting it. Sy Syms used to say, "An educated consumer is our best customer". I am saying that 21st century health care is not equal to buying clothes. Even if someone wants to know, it is (at least in my estimation) likely they won't understand it. I am not holding to the Hippocratic standard of keeping a professional oath, but to no one else. I'll share my knowledge with anyone. However, sadly, in my anecdotal experience (which I would project across the board), what is transmitted is not faithfully received more often than not. And, when people get something off the internet, just remember, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

 

[Saint Muzhik]

Both got their information from WebMD.

WebMD; Where every sneeze is a secret heart attack and a body temperature of 98.6F is a sure sign of cancer.
Could be worse -- could be Tumblr... Never in my life would I thought that people would collect and wear self-diagnoses with pride.