Beware the Blinkers by Jerome Groopman, MD Snap judgments are cool, except when they're wrong.
By Jerry Adler Newsweek April 23, 2007 issue -
Angelos Delivorrias, director of the Benaki Museum in Athens, knew at a glance that the marble statue of a young man was a fake. True, before purchasing the piece, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles had hired legions of experts, who concurred with its dating to the sixth century B.C.
But Delivorrias was responding to his instinctive feeling on first seeing the piece, a sense of "intuitive repulsion." And he was most likely right, as the journalist Malcolm Gladwell recounted in his 2005 book, "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking." The Getty now lists the statue as a possible "modern forgery."
Dr. Pat Croskerry knew at a glance that the patient in his emergency room wasn't having a heart attack. True, he had a sudden onset of severe chest pain, but Croskerry relied on his initial impression of a trim, athletic man in his early 40s. His test results were normal, so Croskerry diagnosed a muscle pull and sent him home.
He was wrong, as the author and physician Jerome Groopman recounts in his new best seller, "How Doctors Think." The next morning, the patient was admitted to the hospital with an acute myocardial infarct.
Just when you thought it was safe to trust your intuition--when psychologists publish studies on the "deliberation-without-attention effect" and singles practice impressing one another in five-minute speed-dating encounters--along comes the soft-spoken, white-bearded Groopman to say, maybe better take another look. And while he didn't intend his book as an answer to his New Yorker colleague's monumental best seller, he also wouldn't mind if his own field of medicine was more inclined to honor the old-fashioned virtues of deliberation, caution and systematic thinking.
In his long career, Groopman, whose research interests range from hematology and oncology to AIDS, has made his share of mistakes, and clearly learned from them. The number of ways in which a doctor can screw up make for uncomfortable reading: "satisfaction of search," the tendency to stop considering alternative explanations once you arrive at a plausible hypothesis; "diagnosis momentum," the unconscious suppression of evidence that conflicts with an existing theory; "commission bias," the preference for action for its own sake. Groopman has particular disdain for snap judgments and intuitive leaps not supported by rigorous logic.
One of his heroes is a radiologist named Dennis Orwig, whose insistence on methodically tracing every loop and twist of intestine in an X-ray led him to a difficult diagnosis of a potentially fatal bowel condition.
Orwig's practice, Groopman notes, runs counter to the received wisdom of his specialty, which holds that "conclusions from first impressions, or 'gestalt,' are the mark of good training, much as 'shooting from the hip' is prized among ER doctors." And Orwig's approach also runs counter to some of the assertions in "Blink." Gladwell cites a study of how intensive-care nurses make decisions under pressure.
The report found that "when experts make decisions, they don't logically and systematically compare all available options ... [They] size up a situation almost immediately and act, drawing on experience and intuition and a kind of rough mental simulation." That is, they do just what Groopman warns against.
Damien Donck for Newsweek
� 2007 Newsweek, Inc
-------------------- Neil Posts: 697 | From Tucson, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this book. While he doesn't cover all the problems, there is enough honest exposure of what goes on inside the medical world, that it definitely is worth reading. Not sure if sufficient emphasis is given to changing paradigms and inertia in tackling unsatisfactory protocol outcomes. Seems like he is more interested in the individual cases, not the big picture of how they got to accept conventional failures on a large scale, instead of rewarding and pursuing success in unconventional methods. Why is it so hard to change the status quo? Just sit in the mud and accept it as inevitable.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic