There has been an increase in the belief that patients should only discuss one issue with their doctor during each visit. This idea actually goes hand-in-hand with the entire topic of maintenance (Part I of this Health Care series).
It is evident that our resources are being spread too thin. Whether from understaffed hospitals and offices, lack of funding, misplace or mismanaged funding, a larger pool of chronically ill patients, fewer doctors, or something I cannot even think of, our issues in health care that were previously subtle are now reaching the forefront.
When the resources are not there, patient care is altered. Diminished, even. Through no fault, necessarily, of physicians and nurses and frontline health professionals themselves, patient care begins to dwindle. Lines for surgeries and scans become longer. More blood donors are needed. More organ donation is needed. There is something lacking in every department of health care at the moment.
So now, with an overloaded system, the onus falls on the patient to limit their required time with a physician.
I can see both sides of this policy.
On one hand, it would intend to limit visits for those who are, perhaps, being over-cautious. It would also limit visits from patients who are dealing with simple, relatively harmless, infections that need to run their course. It forces us to triage ourselves and decide which one symptom or issue is worth a visit, and which symptoms are not severe enough to warrant a thorough discussion. There are some up-sides to this policy, absolutely.
What are the down-sides though?
Without being trained as a medical professional, it is often difficult to tell which symptoms are connected with others. We need the expertise of physicians to look at us and connect the dots that we did not even realize could be connected.
Right before I was diagnosed with Hereditary Angioedema, I was referred to the Urgent Care Assessment Clinic. This clinic is essentially (in my understanding) where patients are sent if death is a possibility, but no one can figure out why. Rapid deterioration with no discovered reason. I thought that my fragile state was connected to the swelling episodes, the intestinal swelling, and vomiting fits. So that's what we discussed. And yet, even that particular physician said that he believed the potential HAE discovery was a distraction from what was really happening.
He turned out to be exactly right.
Yes, I do have Hereditary Angioedema. Yes, it was causing severe symptoms.
It was not, however, the primary reason for my swift decline.
He knew that, based on ALL of my symptoms, not just five or six, let alone one.
One issue per visit requires patients to fend for themselves more.
For the Average Joe, this may not cause any undue hardships. It might, though.
The more we fend for ourselves, whether healthy or chronically ill, the greater chance of missing important symptoms.
It would result in more appointments per patient. Patients like myself would have to book 6 appointments at once to cover all of the symptoms and flare-ups that I will eventually endure.
So, would we rather have to wait half an hour past our scheduled appointment time while the doctor accommodates each of your major complaints/symptoms, or would you rather have to book appointments even farther in advance?
Having patients fend for themselves a bit more is a positive thing overall, necessary even. With an overloaded system, we should be able to take care of the small stuff ourselves.
Limiting people to one specific issue may be a touch too drastic.
Plus, will this actually reduce wait times for important appointments?
I mean, it would be nice to know that if your appointment says "10:30" that you will actually get in at "10:30"... but at what cost?
Let me know what you think about the 'one issue per visit' policy that some doctors are adopting.
Do you agree? Do you disagree? What are some more positive aspects of this policy? I would love to hear from health care professionals on this topic. Perhaps my point of view is too biased because of being on the patient side of these debates incessantly.
No comments:
Post a Comment