Diagnoses by general practitioners: Accuracy and reliability
Only 10% of the results of consultations in primary care can be assigned to a confirmed diagnosis, while 50% remain "symptoms" and 40% are classified as "named syndromes" ("picture of a disease"). Moreover, less than 20% of the most frequent diagnoses account for more than 80% of the results of consultations. This finding, confirmed empirically during the last fifty years, suggests a power law distribution, with critical consequences for diagnosis and decision making in primary care. Our results prove that primary care has a severe "black swan" element in the vast majority of consultations. Some critical cases involving "avoidable life-threatening dangerous developments" (ALDD) such as myocardial disturbance, brain bleeding, and appendicitis may be masked by those often vague symptoms of health disorders ranked in the 20% most frequent diagnoses. The Braun distribution predicts the frequency of health disorders on a phenomenological level and reveals the "black swan" problem, but is not a tool by itself for arriving at accurate diagnoses. To improve predictions and enhance the reliability of diagnoses we propose standards of documentation and a systematic manner by which the risk facing a patient with an uncertain diagnosis can be evaluated (diagnostic protocols). Accepting a power law distribution in primary care implies the following: (1) primary care should no longer be defined only by "low prevalence" properties, but also by its black-swan-incidence-problem. This includes rethinking malpractice and the requirements of malpractice litigations; (2) at the level of everyday practice, diagnostic protocols are tools to make diagnoses more reliable; (3) at the level of epidemiology, Braun's system of classification is useful for generating valid information by which predictions of risks can be improved.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:25:y:2009:i:4:p:784-793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.