Lawsuit for not checking labs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

wamcp

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
700
Reaction score
3,074

28 year old with UC given mesalamine for 8 years by GI doc which the drug caused CKD IV and eventually he got a renal transplant.

Lawsuit filed against GI and PCP for not checking labs in the 8 year period.

Here is the thing: GI was controlling the management of UC with mesalamine. They never checked labs in the interim. The PCP also was not visited for 5 years prior to CKD discovery. In fact CKD was diagnosed by the PCP when care was re-established in the 8th year of mesalamine treatment and routine labs were checked!!

How is it the PCP is on the hook for diagnosing/“saving the patient” and when it’s all GI’s fault?

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

28 year old with UC given mesalamine for 8 years by GI doc which the drug caused CKD IV and eventually he got a renal transplant.

Lawsuit filed against GI and PCP for not checking labs in the 8 year period.

Here is the thing: GI was controlling the management of UC with mesalamine. They never checked labs in the interim. The PCP also was not visited for 5 years prior to CKD discovery. In fact CKD was diagnosed by the PCP when care was re-established in the 8th year of mesalamine treatment and routine labs were checked!!

How is it the PCP is on the hook for diagnosing/“saving the patient” and when it’s all GI’s fault?
The argument will be that you need to check labs every so often. If you failed to check labs in 3 years, he will argue that the damage to the kidneys compounded and that it could have been caught sooner
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

28 year old with UC given mesalamine for 8 years by GI doc which the drug caused CKD IV and eventually he got a renal transplant.

Lawsuit filed against GI and PCP for not checking labs in the 8 year period.

Here is the thing: GI was controlling the management of UC with mesalamine. They never checked labs in the interim. The PCP also was not visited for 5 years prior to CKD discovery. In fact CKD was diagnosed by the PCP when care was re-established in the 8th year of mesalamine treatment and routine labs were checked!!

How is it the PCP is on the hook for diagnosing/“saving the patient” and when it’s all GI’s fault?

So from what I read, the GI/PCP were found negligent for their failure "to inform" the patient of the risks of the medication? ie they never mentioned (or likely never documented mentioning) the necessity of close f/u with regular labs? It's a bit of stretch, I feel for the PCP and GI. I'm sure they counseled the patient, maybe they just didn't document having done so.

This is why I check labs on all of my patients, q 12 months at the least, even if it's not clearly indicated. "That's not cost conscious care, I'm not choosing wisely???" IDGAF.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
so who was prescribing the asacol? how did he get his Rx refilled year after year after year without a clinic visit? if either were filling the Rx without labs...well, they are negligent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so who was prescribing the asacol? how did he get his Rx refilled year after year after year without a clinic visit? if either were filling the Rx without labs...well, they are negligent.
That to my mind is the key part. If a specialist is prescribing something, I assume that they are doing appropriate monitoring. But if I prescribe it, I will do whatever monitoring is needed.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
Why is the pcp getting sued? Sure he should have checked labs, but he didn’t see the patient for five years and wasn’t even the one who prescribed the drug…

Pcps aren’t responsible for every health care treatment someone gets. Are pcps on the hook now for complications from a knee replacement?

Now if the pcp was brash enough to be the one refilling it then that’s a different story…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Why is the pcp getting sued? Sure he should have checked labs, but he didn’t see the patient for five years and wasn’t even the one who prescribed the drug…

Pcps aren’t responsible for every health care treatment someone gets. Are pcps on the hook now for complications from a knee replacement?

Now if the pcp was brash enough to be the one refilling it then that’s a different story…

This is a consequence of the now heavily-fragmented care we see all across America. I have patients whose BP meds are managed by 3 different doctors (me the PCM, a cardiologist, a nephrologist). I don't fight with the sub-specs, I let them do their thing. What's funny though is they do fight with each other sometimes, very entertaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is a consequence of the now heavily-fragmented care we see all across America. I have patients whose BP meds are managed by 3 different doctors (me the PCM, a cardiologist, a nephrologist). I don't fight with the sub-specs, I let them do their thing. What's funny though is they do fight with each other sometimes, very entertaining.
The fragmented care wouldn't be as bad if I could see everyone else's notes when I wanted to.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 10 users
This is a consequence of the now heavily-fragmented care we see all across America. I have patients whose BP meds are managed by 3 different doctors (me the PCM, a cardiologist, a nephrologist). I don't fight with the sub-specs, I let them do their thing. What's funny though is they do fight with each other sometimes, very entertaining.
For my hypertension consultations, I utilize remote telemonitoring (for the Medicare population) for constant home remote BP measurements, employ volume status examinations with POCUS, and perform an appropriate secondary workup (in the right situation)

Then I send this to the cardiologists and nicely have them infer "back off dude nothing stent here."
 
The fragmented care wouldn't be as bad if I could see everyone else's notes when I wanted to.
In private practice when it is not all connected, this becomes a real chore. One of my medical assistants primary job is to ask for notes or labs. Most of the time, notes are not sent most likely because some other doctor billed but did not write a note. Or used a full template without much substance.

As a Gen Y who grew up with computers, I write the most organized notes (not a manifesto... just I put in all relevant information that people want to know and copy forward the prior note with timestamps so I can keep track of a complicated patient's workup) and I efax it myself (thru the EMR build in function it is a one button click) right away to the referring physician (or other physicians). At least I am doing my part.

but the real life saver is I am able to use the lab companies websites to search patients lab results , search local radiology portals for prior scans, and scan the hospital EMRs for prior information, and use Surescripts to find the pharmacy and which medications were dispensed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

28 year old with UC given mesalamine for 8 years by GI doc which the drug caused CKD IV and eventually he got a renal transplant.

Lawsuit filed against GI and PCP for not checking labs in the 8 year period.

Here is the thing: GI was controlling the management of UC with mesalamine. They never checked labs in the interim. The PCP also was not visited for 5 years prior to CKD discovery. In fact CKD was diagnosed by the PCP when care was re-established in the 8th year of mesalamine treatment and routine labs were checked!!

How is it the PCP is on the hook for diagnosing/“saving the patient” and when it’s all GI’s fault?
I agree, suing the PCP was a cash grab for sure. Better hope nothing bad ever happens for the rest of his life with that new kidney ever otherwise I am sure the transplant surgeon will get sued too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Interstitial nephritis from mesalamine is rare, but there does seem to be some standard of care of monitoring. I found some things on pubmed (recommends monitoring at least first few years of therapy, especially first year as half of cases occur in that time frame) and the FDA (monitor “periodically”). It’s too well known of a complication even if rare; we probably had test questions about it.

GI should have taken care of it. It seems like the PCP got caught in the crossfire. I think that is where I settled. I do go back and forth a little as the PCP did see the patient for 3 years prior to him being MIA, and checking labs would have been easy, but hey, you refer to specialists for them to take care of the problem. Monitoring for adverse reactions from a therapy is part of that for a specialist.

I have to have staff get records and labs from other offices all the time. Just part of the job. Maybe one day everything will be better reconciled. There is a mix of offices that send nothing, some things, and just absolutely everything…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So from what I read, the GI/PCP were found negligent for their failure "to inform" the patient of the risks of the medication? ie they never mentioned (or likely never documented mentioning) the necessity of close f/u with regular labs? It's a bit of stretch, I feel for the PCP and GI. I'm sure they counseled the patient, maybe they just didn't document having done so.

This is why I check labs on all of my patients, q 12 months at the least, even if it's not clearly indicated. "That's not cost conscious care, I'm not choosing wisely???" IDGAF.
Choosing Wisely Lemmings are just people who've never practiced enough to have a bad outcome or aren't checking to see if they've had one. I'm not saying you neglect the guidelines, but the first rule is to do no harm (by not allowing recommendations aimed at a specific clinical scenario override general common sense). I had an ED intern tell me he watched a EM podcast (that probably has extensive disclaimers at the beginning that it's not meant for clinical practice, but teaching/fostering a discussion) and that the only thing to check in new onset HTN urgency is a troponin, no CXR, BMP, EKG etc...I get it, there's no great reason to suspect pulmonary edema, AKI, ACS but if someone presented to the ED and you had resources at your disposal like a stroke, heart attack, etc. if something happens later it would be nice to have the normal EKG, CT scan, as DC instructions to control the BP and follow up with the PCP as receipts.

Presentations change. Just look at how the patient's chief complaint magically changes from tripping over the stair to pleuritic chest pain (asked in retrospect after CTA Chest showed PE).

In this specific case, the GI is prescribing an NSAID that increases risk of kidney injury. GI is at fault. In the future, I'm making a streamlined system of dot-phrases, house calls, etc. for each medication I prescribe. I've seen some great practices modeled by some subspecialists I've seen in clinic. The key is to go slow, and explain every small thing that is started and each lab that is ordered and why and to document all elements for liability and billing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Interstitial nephritis from mesalamine is rare, but there does seem to be some standard of care of monitoring. I found some things on pubmed (recommends monitoring at least first few years of therapy, especially first year as half of cases occur in that time frame) and the FDA (monitor “periodically”). It’s too well known of a complication even if rare; we probably had test questions about it.

GI should have taken care of it. It seems like the PCP got caught in the crossfire. I think that is where I settled. I do go back and forth a little as the PCP did see the patient for 3 years prior to him being MIA, and checking labs would have been easy, but hey, you refer to specialists for them to take care of the problem. Monitoring for adverse reactions from a therapy is part of that for a specialist.

I have to have staff get records and labs from other offices all the time. Just part of the job. Maybe one day everything will be better reconciled. There is a mix of offices that send nothing, some things, and just absolutely everything…

100% this was a reconciling issue. With EPIC, every physician should just be directed to a patient's problem list and overview/plans. Those overviews should be up to date for things other than cancer, etc.
 
100% this was a reconciling issue. With EPIC, every physician should just be directed to a patient's problem list and overview/plans. Those overviews should be up to date for things other than cancer, etc.
Epic is for hospital systems and the physicians in clinics . Purely private practice physicians in solo or small groups will probably buy a cheaper EMR and nothing will be connected .

Hence anyone who is private needs to really be good at bookkeeping (get good at computers - not an issue for Gen Y and Z )or else these issues will come to haunt the doctor
 
Choosing Wisely Lemmings are just people who've never practiced enough to have a bad outcome or aren't checking to see if they've had one. I'm not saying you neglect the guidelines, but the first rule is to do no harm (by not allowing recommendations aimed at a specific clinical scenario override general common sense). I had an ED intern tell me he watched a EM podcast (that probably has extensive disclaimers at the beginning that it's not meant for clinical practice, but teaching/fostering a discussion) and that the only thing to check in new onset HTN urgency is a troponin, no CXR, BMP, EKG etc...I get it, there's no great reason to suspect pulmonary edema, AKI, ACS but if someone presented to the ED and you had resources at your disposal like a stroke, heart attack, etc. if something happens later it would be nice to have the normal EKG, CT scan, as DC instructions to control the BP and follow up with the PCP as receipts.

Presentations change. Just look at how the patient's chief complaint magically changes from tripping over the stair to pleuritic chest pain (asked in retrospect after CTA Chest showed PE).

In this specific case, the GI is prescribing an NSAID that increases risk of kidney injury. GI is at fault. In the future, I'm making a streamlined system of dot-phrases, house calls, etc. for each medication I prescribe. I've seen some great practices modeled by some subspecialists I've seen in clinic. The key is to go slow, and explain every small thing that is started and each lab that is ordered and why and to document all elements for liability and billing.

Choosing Wisely is a huge scam. You can save the system all the money in the world by doing less and then the same system will crush you the second you miss 1 thing (despite following guidelines). And you only need to miss something once.
That to my mind is the key part. If a specialist is prescribing something, I assume that they are doing appropriate monitoring. But if I prescribe it, I will do whatever monitoring is needed.
In general if you're seeing a patient annually it's best to get labs on them. Even the healthy ones. It's a habit that prevents people from falling through the cracks. I would have missed a ton of diabetes if I just followed the guidelines for example. And would have missed lots of anemia and liver disease etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Choosing Wisely is a huge scam. You can save the system all the money in the world by doing less and then the same system will crush you the second you miss 1 thing (despite following guidelines). And you only need to miss something once.

In general if you're seeing a patient annually it's best to get labs on them. Even the healthy ones. It's a habit that prevents people from falling through the cracks. I would have missed a ton of diabetes if I just followed the guidelines for example. And would have missed lots of anemia and liver disease etc.
Have you ever actually looked at the Choosing Wisely stuff for our specialty? The only labs that are mentioned are PSA and asymptomatic HSV.

That said, I don't get routine labs on my under 30 patients unless I have a good reason which admittedly this would be; however, as I said previously, if a specialist is managing something I generally leave it to them. For instance if I send a patient to cardiology for CHF, I'm not going to keep ordering echos myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Have you ever actually looked at the Choosing Wisely stuff for our specialty? The only labs that are mentioned are PSA and asymptomatic HSV.
It's the whole rhetoric of Choosing Wisely. To do very little and assuming everything is self limiting. The issue is that some stuff, once seen in a clinical setting, needs to be worked up for liability reasons.
That said, I don't get routine labs on my under 30 patients unless I have a good reason which admittedly this would be; however, as I said previously, if a specialist is managing something I generally leave it to them. For instance if I send a patient to cardiology for CHF, I'm not going to keep ordering echos myself.
I've caught lots of asymptomatic illness in those under 30 by running routine labs. But obviously I agree on letting specialists handle issues after referral.
 
It's the whole rhetoric of Choosing Wisely. To do very little and assuming everything is self limiting. The issue is that some stuff, once seen in a clinical setting, needs to be worked up for liability reasons.

I've caught lots of asymptomatic illness in those under 30 by running routine labs. But obviously I agree on letting specialists handle issues after referral.
Sure, but did catching it early reduce morbidity/mortality? Because very often it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sure, but did catching it early reduce morbidity/mortality? Because very often it doesn't.

I mean there's no good data looking at end outcomes (over a very long time span) for catching things early in the healthy population. I don't look at 5 year outcome studies and then apply them to a person's lifetime.
Now anecdotally, catching things early did change my patients' outcomes.
 
I mean there's no good data looking at end outcomes (over a very long time span) for catching things early in the healthy population. I don't look at 5 year outcome studies and then apply them to a person's lifetime.
Now anecdotally, catching things early did change my patients' outcomes.
You say so.
 
Sure, but did catching it early reduce morbidity/mortality? Because very often it doesn't.
But you didnt protect yourself from lawsuits! Better get ready for all the lawsuits coming your way because you didn't detect the start of their CKD 3 years ago from medicine someone else was prescribing for a condition you weren't managing. I know every person who comes in to clinic with a cough, shortness of breath, or well **** it lungs is getting a CT chest to make sure I dont miss cancer so now I can never be sued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You say so.
What about history taking? Physical exam findings? You can find all sorts of self limited symptoms if you do a thorough enough history, that can then prompt big work ups. You can also find all sorts of things on physical exams that are meaningless.
So I suppose if you're not doing any of that or labs, what are you doing during annual physicals?

We always make fun of the patients who don't see a doctor in many years but then think it's wrong to do baseline workups for these patients?
The other issue is that when I take care of these patients in the hospital, I have no idea if their creatinine of 1.7 is new or if their LBBB is new on EKG; because there's no baseline to go off of.
 
Close follow up for seemingly concerning sounding symptoms without apparent textbook findings can help sometimes

CC : oh no I am. 54 year old smoker of 30 pack years and I have such intense chest pain and dyspnea . I must have lung cancer . But my one said my X-ray is normal ! I want a CT scan !

HPI : do you have any symptoms right now at this moment ? No .
Ros unrevealing
Physical exam unrevealing .

After reviewing basic labs X-ray images obtain full history including the family and the bird history etc …

Plan -
Reassurance
Handholding
Pat on the back
Patronizing the patient in a nice sounding way

Rtc in one month or sooner if symptoms do not improve for further workup such as CT scan. Counsel on the need for close follow up .

One month later - patient no showed - I have the front desk call the patient - patient declines follow up becuase he feels better

Document I asked patient back but patient declined despite counseling pros cons alternatives etc informed consent

CT scan saved. provide reccomenation to pmd can consider LDCT next year at age 55

Something like that
 
What about history taking? Physical exam findings? You can find all sorts of self limited symptoms if you do a thorough enough history, that can then prompt big work ups. You can also find all sorts of things on physical exams that are meaningless.
So I suppose if you're not doing any of that or labs, what are you doing during annual physicals?

We always make fun of the patients who don't see a doctor in many years but then think it's wrong to do baseline workups for these patients?
The other issue is that when I take care of these patients in the hospital, I have no idea if their creatinine of 1.7 is new or if their LBBB is new on EKG; because there's no baseline to go off of.
I don't do many annual physicals as they aren't recommended any more. For patients that still want them, I do a fair bit of lab work. It's entirely for patient satisfaction reasons, assuming all of their screenings are up to date.
 
I don't do many annual physicals as they aren't recommended any more. For patients that still want them, I do a fair bit of lab work. It's entirely for patient satisfaction reasons, assuming all of their screenings are up to date.
So how do we prevent people from showing up with an A1C of 12 or cirrhosis or stage 4 CKD among other things if we don't do any sort of screening annually? Just wait for them to show up in DKA or when they have 3+ edema or ascites? What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-obese patients who have an A1C of 10 that guidelines say to not screen? Or 30 year olds with an LDL of upper 200s? Not trying to be a smartass, it's just these are things I come across all the time and I'm genuinely curious how someone else would approach it if not doing screening.

Keep in mind a lot of these studies that formulated these recommendations were done in certain populations. You can't always extrapolate those findings to all demographics. Recommendations and guidelines are only as good as the raw data that was used to formulate them. It's like PSA guidelines based on old data that we still like to talk about when newer data or data from other populations gives different impressions. Or using DVT/PE scoring systems in patient populations where they were not studied in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So how do we prevent people from showing up with an A1C of 12 or cirrhosis or stage 4 CKD among other things if we don't do any sort of screening annually? Just wait for them to show up in DKA or when they have 3+ edema or ascites? What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-obese patients who have an A1C of 10 that guidelines say to not screen? Or 30 year olds with an LDL of upper 200s? Not trying to be a smartass, it's just these are things I come across all the time and I'm genuinely curious how someone else would approach it if not doing screening.

Keep in mind a lot of these studies that formulated these recommendations were done in certain populations. You can't always extrapolate those findings to all demographics. Recommendations and guidelines are only as good as the raw data that was used to formulate them. It's like PSA guidelines based on old data that we still like to talk about when newer data or data from other populations gives different impressions. Or using DVT/PE scoring systems in patient populations where they were not studied in.

MedicineZ0Z reasoning:

"How do we prevent 30 year olds without risk factors from showing up with colon cancer if we don't do any screening annually? Gotta start screening with colonoscopy every 20 year old because the data is population level and cannot be extrapolated. What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-smoker with lung cancer who the guidelines say not to screen for lung cancer? You obviously gotta start LDCT at 20 year of age even though the data doesn't support it. These are things I come across 'all the time'!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
MedicineZ0Z reasoning:

"How do we prevent 30 year olds without risk factors from showing up with colon cancer if we don't do any screening annually? Gotta start screening with colonoscopy every 20 year old because the data is population level and cannot be extrapolated. What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-smoker with lung cancer who the guidelines say not to screen for lung cancer? You obviously gotta start LDCT at 20 year of age even though the data doesn't support it. These are things I come across 'all the time'!"
Strawman argument.

You clearly don't know about the prevalence of diabetes in certain demographics. Or the prevalence of FH, which is seen just as bad (and just as common) at age 20 as it is at age 50. Or.. prevalence of anemia in some demographic groups, prevalence of fatty liver disease in 2022 that is nowhere close to being accounted for in our current guidelines.

The easy answer for your statement, is that there's a world of difference between doing invasive testing vs blood draws.
 
So how do we prevent people from showing up with an A1C of 12 or cirrhosis or stage 4 CKD among other things if we don't do any sort of screening annually? Just wait for them to show up in DKA or when they have 3+ edema or ascites? What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-obese patients who have an A1C of 10 that guidelines say to not screen? Or 30 year olds with an LDL of upper 200s? Not trying to be a smartass, it's just these are things I come across all the time and I'm genuinely curious how someone else would approach it if not doing screening.

Keep in mind a lot of these studies that formulated these recommendations were done in certain populations. You can't always extrapolate those findings to all demographics. Recommendations and guidelines are only as good as the raw data that was used to formulate them. It's like PSA guidelines based on old data that we still like to talk about when newer data or data from other populations gives different impressions. Or using DVT/PE scoring systems in patient populations where they were not studied in.
Let me ask you this: in a normal weight patient under age 45 with no risk factors what's the NNS to pick up 1 case of diabetes?

The ACC recommends checking cholesterol at least once on everyone over age 20 which will pick up your familial hypercholesterolemias quite well.

Are you telling me you picked up stage 4 CKD in a patient with literally no risk factors or conditions that would warrant checking a creatinine in their own right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Strawman argument.

You clearly don't know about the prevalence of diabetes in certain demographics. Or the prevalence of FH, which is seen just as bad (and just as common) at age 20 as it is at age 50. Or.. prevalence of anemia in some demographic groups, prevalence of fatty liver disease in 2022 that is nowhere close to being accounted for in our current guidelines.

The easy answer for your statement, is that there's a world of difference between doing invasive testing vs blood draws.
Yes, I'm sure the board certified internist is completely ignorant of all of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What about history taking? Physical exam findings? You can find all sorts of self limited symptoms if you do a thorough enough history, that can then prompt big work ups. You can also find all sorts of things on physical exams that are meaningless.
So I suppose if you're not doing any of that or labs, what are you doing during annual physicals?

1) We always make fun of the patients who don't see a doctor in many years but then think it's wrong to do baseline workups for these patients?

2) The other issue is that when I take care of these patients in the hospital, I have no idea if their creatinine of 1.7 is new or if their LBBB is new on EKG; because there's no baseline to go off of.

1) I'm sorry, what? What doctors are you talking about? That's literally the first thing we do is get baseline labs and imaging if necessary. I'm not a hospitalist/internist but anyone who doesn't order labs for a new patient to establish care probably isn't fit to be a doctor or one to train residents.

2) That's literally Medicine 101. You should either do that or try to get information from their PCP or other hospital that they may have worked on.
 
1) I'm sorry, what? What doctors are you talking about? That's literally the first thing we do is get baseline labs and imaging if necessary. I'm not a hospitalist/internist but anyone who doesn't order labs for a new patient to establish care probably isn't fit to be a doctor or one to train residents.

2) That's literally Medicine 101. You should either do that or try to get information from their PCP or other hospital that they may have worked on.
Really? Labs on every single new patient without exception or I'm not fit to be a doctor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Really? Labs on every single new patient without exception or I'm not fit to be a doctor?

Yeah, that was dumb.
A) I'm used to adults
B) I'm used to middle age/older people
C) I should clarify that established care not someone coming for pain :rofl:
D) The caffeine hasn't kicked in yet and I definitely jumped the gun on that reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So how do we prevent people from showing up with an A1C of 12 or cirrhosis or stage 4 CKD among other things if we don't do any sort of screening annually? Just wait for them to show up in DKA or when they have 3+ edema or ascites? What do you recommend for my 33 year old non-obese patients who have an A1C of 10 that guidelines say to not screen? Or 30 year olds with an LDL of upper 200s? Not trying to be a smartass, it's just these are things I come across all the time and I'm genuinely curious how someone else would approach it if not doing screening.

Keep in mind a lot of these studies that formulated these recommendations were done in certain populations. You can't always extrapolate those findings to all demographics. Recommendations and guidelines are only as good as the raw data that was used to formulate them. It's like PSA guidelines based on old data that we still like to talk about when newer data or data from other populations gives different impressions. Or using DVT/PE scoring systems in patient populations where they were not studied in.
Trust me … someone with an a1c of 10+ Is peeing like a race horse and has other symptoms as well… you don’t have to screen…a good H&P will give you that information
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Let me ask you this: in a normal weight patient under age 45 with no risk factors what's the NNS to pick up 1 case of diabetes?
Start separating by latino, african american, native etc. I keep emphasizing the demographic groups for a reason. There isn't large scale robust data, only that diabetes is far more common in those groups.
The ACC recommends checking cholesterol at least once on everyone over age 20 which will pick up your familial hypercholesterolemias quite well.
Yes if you follow ACC guidelines. USPSTF does not recommend that.
Are you telling me you picked up stage 4 CKD in a patient with literally no risk factors or conditions that would warrant checking a creatinine in their own right?
No I said how do we prevent people from showing up late with these things if we aren't screening earlier.
 
Yeah, that was dumb.
A) I'm used to adults
B) I'm used to middle age/older people
C) I should clarify that established care not someone coming for pain :rofl:
D) The caffeine hasn't kicked in yet and I definitely jumped the gun on that reply.
There isn't a single guideline that recommends doing broad screening labs on an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Start separating by latino, african american, native etc. I keep emphasizing the demographic groups for a reason. There isn't large scale robust data, only that diabetes is far more common in those groups.

Yes if you follow ACC guidelines. USPSTF does not recommend that.

No I said how do we prevent people from showing up late with these things if we aren't screening earlier.
You didn't answer my question so I'll rephrase: how often does a completely healthy person under the age of 45 with zero risk factors show up? I'll give you a hint, the answer is almost never because those demographic groups are considered risk factors and so you would screen for diabetes in them: Risk Factors for Diabetes | NIDDK

I'm well aware, that's why multiple guidelines exist.

Someone who has been receiving regular medical care is exceptionally unlikely to show up with stage 4 CVD out of the blue. There are usually causes for that that we'd either pick up with the recommended screening or having symptoms of a disease that causes kidney issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There isn't a single guideline that recommends doing broad screening labs on an adult.

Where did I say broad screening? I said baseline labs. Obviously you're not going to get a CBC w/ diff, tick panel, etc etc. I mean, you could, but I'm not sure if insurance would even pay for it. If I did, that's not what I meant. Again, remember, caffeine deficiency makes you say stupid ****.

Also, I'm reading what I wrote again and I said baseline if necessary. So...sorry for the confusion if anything.
 
You didn't answer my question so I'll rephrase: how often does a completely healthy person under the age of 45 with zero risk factors show up? I'll give you a hint, the answer is almost never because those demographic groups are considered risk factors and so you would screen for diabetes in them: Risk Factors for Diabetes | NIDDK

I'm well aware, that's why multiple guidelines exist.

Someone who has been receiving regular medical care is exceptionally unlikely to show up with stage 4 CVD out of the blue. There are usually causes for that that we'd either pick up with the recommended screening or having symptoms of a disease that causes kidney issues.

Plus, alternatively, running labs can cause you more headache/problems for you and the patient.
 
You didn't answer my question so I'll rephrase: how often does a completely healthy person under the age of 45 with zero risk factors show up? I'll give you a hint, the answer is almost never because those demographic groups are considered risk factors and so you would screen for diabetes in them: Risk Factors for Diabetes | NIDDK

I'm well aware, that's why multiple guidelines exist.

Someone who has been receiving regular medical care is exceptionally unlikely to show up with stage 4 CVD out of the blue. There are usually causes for that that we'd either pick up with the recommended screening or having symptoms of a disease that causes kidney issues.
But you said you aren't doing annual physicals. So how are you even assessing risk factors in presumably healthy people if people are only coming in for symptoms?

Where did I say broad screening? I said baseline labs. Obviously you're not going to get a CBC w/ diff, tick panel, etc etc. I mean, you could, but I'm not sure if insurance would even pay for it. If I did, that's not what I meant. Again, remember, caffeine deficiency makes you say stupid ****.

Also, I'm reading what I wrote again and I said baseline if necessary. So...sorry for the confusion if anything.
What do you mean by baseline labs?
 
But you said you aren't doing annual physicals. So how are you even assessing risk factors in presumably healthy people if people are only coming in for symptoms?


What do you mean by baseline labs?
Do you even know what you are trying to argue for at this point? We get it, everyone who walks in the door under your care gets a whole body CT and a CMP/CBC/ANA/BNP/PSA (or CA-125)/AFP etc etc etc so you can never get sued. Good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Strawman argument.

You clearly don't know about the prevalence of diabetes in certain demographics. Or the prevalence of FH, which is seen just as bad (and just as common) at age 20 as it is at age 50. Or.. prevalence of anemia in some demographic groups, prevalence of fatty liver disease in 2022 that is nowhere close to being accounted for in our current guidelines.

The easy answer for your statement, is that there's a world of difference between doing invasive testing vs blood draws.
Do you even know what you are trying to argue for at this point? We get it, everyone who walks in the door under your care gets a whole body CT and a CMP/CBC/ANA/BNP/PSA (or CA-125)/AFP etc etc etc so you can never get sued. Good job.

No CT because LD-CT is "invasive testing" according to him. It is painful to argue with the flawed logic of placing more value in anecdotes than evidence/guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
But you said you aren't doing annual physicals. So how are you even assessing risk factors in presumably healthy people if people are only coming in for symptoms?


What do you mean by baseline labs?
You're kidding right? You do realize you can do multiple things in a visit. That's the whole point behind targeted screenings.

An obese 35 year old comes in with a sprained ankle, "By the way, I think we should get some labs checking your cholesterol and blood sugar".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You're kidding right? You do realize you can do multiple things in a visit. That's the whole point behind targeted screenings.

An obese 35 year old comes in with a sprained ankle, "By the way, I think we should get some labs checking your cholesterol and blood sugar".
Nothing against you if that's how you practice. I'm sure it can work.

I've seen a lot of patients get annoyed when they come in for one thing and have additional things added on. But again, it probably works for some.
I like annual visits because it also gives the patient an opportunity to buy into preventative care and it allocates time to do all those things. Discussing all pertinent screening with an overweight 55 year old male who has not had any recent check ups in years is tough to do when they come in with a rash, shoulder pain and low back pain.

Do you even know what you are trying to argue for at this point? We get it, everyone who walks in the door under your care gets a whole body CT and a CMP/CBC/ANA/BNP/PSA (or CA-125)/AFP etc etc etc so you can never get sued. Good job.
Doing a CBC, CMP, lipid screening annually to every other year, A1C (unless they're skinny) +/- TSH every few years is how most primary care doctors practice in the community. There's nothing unreasonable about it, when it's literally what most do.
 
Doing a CBC, CMP, lipid screening annually to every other year, A1C (unless they're skinny) +/- TSH every few years is how most primary care doctors practice in the community. There's nothing unreasonable about it, when it's literally what most do.
I know I said you are doing a good job

Well Done Reaction GIF by Children's Miracle Network Hospitals
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
In residency , I had a clinic patient once who was 24 in athletic shape and no pmhx or any family history . No complaints . A full physical exam was unrevealing . Like totally full. Not only in a gown but valsalva and handgrip were used during cardiac auscultation and a snellen chart was used, a panoptic ophthalmoscope was used as well , the anus was observed for hemorrhoids , the testes were palpated for masses , a hammer and tuning fork were attempted to be used and Castells sign was attempted for splenomegaly etc … ! Academic indeed lol.

I presented to the academic teaching attending and who said nothing is needed base on the guidelines for this patient . Yep that didn’t go over well with the the patient when the attending came in to discuss this plan lol . Patient satisfaction dropped !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
But you said you aren't doing annual physicals. So how are you even assessing risk factors in presumably healthy people if people are only coming in for symptoms?


What do you mean by baseline labs?
Required labs based on age. Like every person over 20 gets HIV testing. I'm not trying to be convoluted like before. I'm awake. I got my coffee. It's required labs that other people are saying based on their risks.
I know I do ID but we still have to look out for these things in HIV patients and what not.
It's easy to infer baseline means everything but no. I agree with what's being said. Its not your job to do this. Unless you feel it's warranted.
 
In residency , I had a clinic patient once who was 24 in athletic shape and no pmhx or any family history . No complaints . A full physical exam was unrevealing . Like totally full. Not only in a gown but valsalva and handgrip were used during cardiac auscultation and a smelled chart was used, a panoptic ophthalmoscope was used as well , the anus was observed for hemorrhoids , the testes were palpated for masses , a hammer and tuning fork were attempted to be used and Castells sign was attempted for splenomegaly etc … ! Academic indeed lol.

I presented to the academic teaching attending and who said nothing is needed base on the guidelines for this patient . Yep that didn’t go over well with the the patient when the attending came in to discuss this plan lol . Patient satisfaction dropped !
Because you didn't get a procalcitonin. Duh.

I'm joking btw
 
Because you didn't get a procalcitonin. Duh.

I'm joking btw
Now I see pro cal ordered by everyone and anyone as the “bacteria barometer” versus using it as a way to deescalate antibiotics more quickly in sepsis .

On the consults for pneumonia I get, procal borderline high vanc zosyn becuase the patient was in a rehab center recently or something … unimpressive cxr - no sputum Cx or urine antigens ordered - when I talk to the patient the patients Tend to tell me sure I’ll give you sputum just give me a cup!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top