Re: Ultrasound--diagnosis or treatment?
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Sun Feb 25 09:47:30 2001
all for keeping it simple - after all, colleagues read a report
beginning with the impression. however, we've all been humbled by the
surgical findings which are totally inconsistent with the ultrasound
impression. impression is a far better word choice than diagnosis,
especially in the us of a with a legal system with zero tolerance for
human error.
just my opinion - i could be wrong.
art
At Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Martin Necas wrote:
>
>Always an interesting discussion re: role of sonographer/sonologist in
>diagnosis.
>One comment I’d like to make:
>-Sonographers provide a diagnosis on a regular basis. On a preliminary
>report I would rather keep to the point and say: “gallstones” rather than
>“several echogenic shadowing mobile masses seen within the lumen of the
>gallbladder”, or “no DVT” rather than “all segments of the deep veins are
>free of intraluminal echos and demonstrate full compressibility with
>spontaneous augmentible flows on color and pulsed Doppler”. If it’s simple,
>let’s keep it simple. ; )
>
>--
>Martin Necas.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net]On Behalf Of Sue
>Davies
>Sent: Friday, 23 February 2001 12:36 p.m.
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: Re: Ultrasound--diagnosis or treatment?
>
>Well put!
>Surely our responsibility as a diagnostic team is to the wellbeing of the
>patient. A team includes all those involved in caring for the patient,
>including those using their skills and experience to report as requested by
>the referrer. Engendering a close working relationship between the members
>of any team will bring about a better result, so without doubt, the simple
>expedient of discussion and exchange of knowledge between referrer and
>diagnostician would give the patient the best of all of our skill. Is it not
>our responsibility to offer our patients the best?
>Sue Davies
>Australian Institute of Ultrasound
>PO Box 434, Mermaid Beach, Qld, 4218
>Phone: 07 55266655
>Fax: 07 55266041
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net]On Behalf Of Mary
>Scarboro
>Sent: Friday, 23 February 2001 5:14 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: Re: Ultrasound--diagnosis or treatment?
>
>Hummmm....Me thinks perhaps you have not experienced the joy of learning
>that your patient with the hemorrhagic corpus luteum has undergone an
>emergency oophorectomy or how about the ectopic that has been passed off as
>an interesting but non-significant finding of 'tubal ring'? Try to
>describe a human nose without using the word 'nose'. See how in the process
>of assessing and documenting anatomic and physiologic information we tip toe
>around political boundaries, worry about covering our buns and dismiss our
>patient as someone else's responsibility. Sad.
>Mary C. Scarboro
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: AKJENNINGS@aol.com <mailto:AKJENNINGS@aol.com> < AKJENNINGS@aol.com
><mailto:AKJENNINGS@aol.com> >
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND < ultrasound@forum.obgyn.net
><mailto:ultrasound@forum.obgyn.net> >
>Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Ultrasound--diagnosis or treatment?
>Ultrasound technologists should ONLY describe what they see when making a
>written report. For example, a report should say "Inhomogeneous, solid
>appearing mass seen without increased blood flow. The measurements are .."
>instead of "Fibroid". We are not physicians, and we open ourselves up for
>liability when we over step our position. If the physician ask what we
>think, then I would tell the doctor what I think the diagnosis and follow up
>should be. I would not put it in writing. They are the doctors, and we are
>the technologists.
>
>Anita Jennings RDMS
>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
