As a clinician, I'd say yes to a bicycle for the mind. But currently, my job is already plenty full with worrying about applying what's known in a correct manner without seeking to break new ground while treating patients, which would be very dangerous and given the odds of success, very stupid. What I'm implying is that the general public has a completely skewed view about what really kills patients in the ICU: mundane infections and "medical errors", which are not really errors at all but in a large majority of cases failures and complications of usual procedures.
But it is just as formulaic as described above. The doctors aren't trying to solve your issue. They're following a flowchart, and if that doesn't work for you, that's your problem, not theirs. Next time, be a better patient.
I've had doctors tell me "Good news! You don't have a problem!" when they were testing me to see if they could explain the problem I have. It's good news for them, because their next step is to tell me to fuck off. It's not good news for me, but apparently they can't tell the difference.
> Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care
> Results: Nurse practitioner consultations were significantly longer than those of the general practitioners (11.57 v 7.28 min; adjusted difference 4.20, 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.41), and nurses carried out more tests (8.7% v 5.6% of patients; odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.66) and asked patients to return more often (37.2% v 24.8%; 1.93, 1.36 to 2.73). There was no significant difference in patterns of prescribing or health status outcome for the two groups. Patients were more satisfied with nurse practitioner consultations (mean score 4.40 v 4.24 for general practitioners; adjusted difference 0.18, 0.092 to 0.257). This difference remained after consultation length was controlled for. There was no significant difference in health service costs (nurse practitioner £18.11 v general practitioner £20.70; adjusted difference £2.33, −£1.62 to £6.28).
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=do...
I’m not sure where this leaves us, as the cheaper training cost for the nurse is a factor too.
Yeah, I'm not really looking for doctors to demonstrate creativity (although House does), so I don't think I'm asking for anything at odds with evidence-based medicine. What I'm saying is that I think you need to get to the bottom of what's actually happening (i.e. why is the program outputting 5 when it should be 4) before you can know what evidence-based medicine to apply in a "precise and totally unimaginative clinical" way to actually fix the problem. As a patient, it just feels like the system, and therefore the doctors in the system, lack the curiosity to figure out what's actually happening. We often get the treatment for the most common issue even though it doesn't quite fit the real issue, or the common issue seems to just be a downstream effect of the real issue.
Sorry, this is not acceptable. The only time I’ve gotten decent medical care for my chronic issues was when I was making enough money to pay for a doctor who only worked fee for service. He would troubleshoot things like an engineer, because he was a former engineer. He improved the quality of my life immeasurably.
I think there’s a difference between “evidence-based” and using only 100% manualized protocols. If medical science was better and actually had answers for everything, sure, let’s stick to the manuals. But medical knowledge isn’t even close to being that thorough. Clinicians need to be able to think on their feet when they look in the manual and there’s nothing there. Otherwise, you’re failing patients.
12-15h a day, 6 days a week with not even a lunch break? You're sorely mistaken. It takes an expert to follow clinical workflows.
I am a bit biased because I have several medical professionals in my family, but a common refrain is definitely that most doctors/nurses aren't going to be that engaged and helpful, and are more of a input/output device to navigate rather than someone you want to completely defer to.
GP orders test. I go to a test center to get the blood drawn. They have couriers taking samples to labs a few times per day.
The only medical practitioners I've found willing to be more curious and to take a more holistic approach are naturopaths. I have had some notable improvements in my chronic health issues working with them, though I am a little uncomfortable with them given their general openness to things that seem pretty questionable to me (like homeopathy).
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fFY2HeC9i2Tx8FEnK/luck-based...
Since you’ve used a slightly fancy Unicode character: I found U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN unpleasant here, and it took a brief bit of thought to understand. (A capital N would probably have helped a little, but the degree sign is still disconcerting.) The character you want is №, U+2116 NUMERO SIGN. If you happen to be using a Compose key, `Compose N o`.
For less fancy options, “#” and “number ” would both be better choices and easier to read than “n°”.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never come across “n°” before. “№” plenty, “#” plenty, “No. ” plenty, “no. ” a few times, but not “n°” with a lowercase n.
Looking through <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign#Usages>… hmm, French AZERTY? I see now that it does have ° readily accessible.
I think another aspect that made it harder for me to recognise immediately was the lack of a full stop; I’d probably have recognised “n° 1” a bit faster. (I’d write “№ 1” rather than “№1”, though personally I’d go fancy with NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE, but that’s ’cos I enjoy doing crazy things like that.)
P.S. I live in Australia. Similar Anglocentrism to the USA in language, though less pronounced in matters of culture.
Creativity also has a role for non-critical conditions when standard treatments aren’t working.
I don’t think it is ideal to operate this way though, to be clear. Obviously this could have easily been missed by me or anyone else. But you aren’t arguing that point. You are approaching it from the perspective of minimising the variance in clinical quality. I don’t agree with you that this requires standardising how clinicians are, not just what they do.
What you should want is curious and creative _researchers_, but precise and totally unimaginative clinical staff. Those are often the same person. See the problem? You want protocols applied down to the last detail. You want nothing left out of standard operating procedure. That's what kills patients in practice.
You might mean creativity in the sense of "let's have guys who think about the right things, and search for rare diagnoses and analyze stuff to see what could work, like Dr House". But that simply can't be done in practice. You can't be testing for every rare thing, because the tail of low probability diagnoses is much too long! And believe me, you _really_ don't want creative doctors around...