Doctors misdiagnose patients every day, and that is one reason why malpractice suits happen so often, and doctors charge high fees to try to offset the money lost when their patients go "sue crazy." Examples of reoccurring misdiagnosis that results in a lot of law suit cases are breast cancer cases. The main point brought up in court to the judges is the fact that if breast cancer is discovered early enough it can be treated. The people bringing on the law suits tend to point fingers at the doctors because they are the ones diagnosing the individuals based upon the results they receive from the laboratory. The problem is it may not always be the doctors fault because the error could have occurred in the laboratory and the doctor diagnosed the individual bases on those results. Clinical Laboratory Scientists do not usually receive law suits directly even though the error might have occurred in the laboratory, but because the doctor has direct contact with the patient he is the most apparent person to sue. Laboratories do not deal with patients directly and because the reported cases to the public are usually reported by patients, the laboratory tends to stay out of trouble. I think it is not exactly fair for a laboratory to stay out of trouble just because they do not have direct contact with the patient (huh?). The laboratory should be held liable for its own actions and the same goes for the doctorexplain.
A misdiagnosis does not always have to result in a law suit, but errors effect patients' lives and should be dealt with accordingly. For example, (one misdiagnosed woman was pronounced . . .)one case of misdiagnosis involved a woman who was pronounced dead at her apartment by an E.M.S (they have less training than paramedics), and (but?) three hours later she was discovered to be alive by a Medical Examiner who heard gurgling sounds coming from the woman (James A1). This critical mistake could have cost the woman her life, but luckily she held on and received the appropriate care. Other individuals that arrived did not check the woman's state because they believed the report from the E.M.S. stating that the woman was dead. This particular case may not have involved the laboratory directly, but it shows what could happen if any kind of error is made how so? if you are making a link to the lab (through analogy) you will have to explain how this could be carried over into the situation that you describe.
Another misdiagnosis or misdiagnosed man ? case that involved the laboratory along with the doctors opinion was an AIDS diagnosis case. A man told he had the AIDS disease went through six years of treatment for the disease, and butnow doctors say he never had the disease at all. Can anyone imagine the pain and suffering he went through for nothing? Suing the hospital for two million dollars was first on his agenda. During the six year treatment, he quit his job after being advised to by his doctors, and he lived life thinking he had only six months to live. I am sure he was overjoyed to find out the test result was actually negative, but the anger toward the doctors outweighed his happiness. This example clearly shows how the doctor is blamed first of all instead of the laboratory. yes! good explanation; use this as a model for your other examples–give the example and then explain its relevance to your issue At one time or another he had to have received a blood test that confirmed any suspicions that the doctors had regarding the AIDS disease. The test would have been performed by a Clinical Laboratory Scientist which clearly shows that a definite error was present somewhere in this patients case. make transition clear to the new idea of the addiction since the rest of this paragraph deals with doctors being blamed firstThe errors occurring in a laboratory are affecting patients in ways that could harm them. For instance, in the case above the patient now has to deal with an addiction to Darvon along with other prescription drugs. I think tests that come out positive should be tested again especially in AIDS testing to confirm that the results are actually positive.
Helping a doctor to diagnose an individual based upon the tests performed is the purpose of the laboratory. Sometimes hospitals do a variety of tests before they can make a correct diagnosis of the patient's condition because, based on the symptoms, certain tests are run first ( be more specific). If an inconclusive outcome arises than more tests will need to be run or tests may be performed for confirmation of the diagnosis. One of the phenomenons occurring in the medical world is results from the laboratory returning false-positive on purpose. False-positive simply is a test that should come back as negative, but a positive test it put in place of the negative test on purpose. Hospitals are literally changing results so a patient will remain in a hospital longer. For example, a hospital in Boston returns false positive results from the laboratory to lengthen the stay of a patient because if a stay is extended, pharmacy fees, laboratory charges, and charges for hospital service rise each extra day the patient remains there (Bates, Goldman, and Lee 365). I always believed that hospitals were out to help individuals and not out for profit. The laboratory along with the doctors had to concur on the decision in order for it to be implemented which questions the credibility of not only the laboratory but the hospital as a whole. All of this is affecting the patient emotionally and financially. Everything done in a hospital should be done in the best interest of the patient, but in this instance it is in the best interest of the hospital. Telling patients their results returned positive could create a lot of unnecessary stress and anxiety for the patients, their friends, and their families. The laboratories seem to be having enough trouble avoiding error-free results without returning the false-positive tests on purpose (OK, good information, but now tie it all back together. You claim that hospitals should be helping people but are in reality causing more harm. Then, you follow with a discussion about unnecessary stress and anxiety. So far, so good; however, based on your first claim, that the false positives are on purpose, it seems to me that they could care less about increased stress. Who is the audience then, and why have you given us this information?).
Laboratories try hard to accommodate every patient, and they try to return accurate results in a minimal amount of time, but sometimes laboratories are forced to rush tests and inaccurate results are returned to the patient. For example, life insurance companies demand laboratories to produce quick and accurate results usually on AIDS test for their customers who want an unusually high level of coverage (policy over $250,000 and high risk individuals). This forces laboratories to rush and when individuals are rushed they become careless sometimes which could cause an inaccurate result to arise. Two individuals seeking life insurance tested HIV positive and were turned down because they were considered of high risk to the company since no present cure for the disease exists. Insurance companies view individuals with AIDS as people who will automatically receive the insurance money, and insurance companies try to stay away from people who they believe will actually put the policy into effect. The two individuals diagnosed with AIDS from above later tested negative which creates a problem with the procedures life insurance companies set up with the laboratories good, how so–explain in more detail (briefly). Laboratories need to maintain professionism within their field, and they need to perform test in an appropriate amount of time and not rush results because errors like the ones above could occur. If more time is instituted, the Clinical Laboratory Scientist can be more assured of the accuracy of the tests. I think an insurance company can wait a few extra days or weeks to find out test results because an unfortunately sudden death of an individual is very unlikely.
Another example that inaccurate results could have negative effects on patients is what happened to an innocent young couple. A mother-to-be was diagnosed as having AIDS. The couple planned to have an abortion and they notified their friends and family of the tragic news. A few days later, luckily before the abortion, the doctor called the couple informing them the laboratory had mixed up the results and she did not have AIDS (Evans D1). AIDS is one of the worst diseases to be diagnosed with because the end result is unfortunately and inevitably death. Even in the few days of thinking she had the disease, there was a lot of stress, anxiety, and the couple looked at the future from a whole new perspective. This error could have caused the woman to lose her baby for no reason. The laboratory claims there was a mix up in the blood samples.
transition Another article I encountered talked about how laboratories are switching to a bar coding system with patients samples so mix ups like the one above will not occur. If a new system of bar coding is brought into effect, errors on switched blood samples could be avoided but what about errors resulted from carelessness or errors done on purpose this sounds like part of a conclusion–a speculation on one way of preventing errors in the lab. Perhaps this is what you have to add to the field at this point.
One According to USA Today, an important factor that effects the accuracy of tests involves the more a disease is apparent in a given area, the more accurate the test can be performed because the effects of the disease will be more prevalent ("First Couple Words of Article Title" #)(USA Today 9). For example, if in a given area over fifty percent of the population has the disease, it is easier to detect that disease than a rare disease not present in that particular area. A similar scenario is a lawyer who specializes in child abuse cases and suddenly has to appear in court for a murder trial. The lawyer is familiar with the law, but it is an area that he/she has not explored before and representing his/her client could be quite difficult because he/she is not familiar with the proceedings, just like the Clinical Laboratory Scientist performing tests on a new and unfamiliar disease. One disease that is frequently diagnosed in error is lyme disease. At a hospital in Boston, only one out of every four patients that are said to have the disease actually do (Colburn WH5). Doctors are diagnosing lyme disease based on symptoms like reddish "bull's eye" rash on the skin, fatigue, aching joints, and malaise. Some reasons why blood tests returned positive are past infections or similar symptoms such as chronic fatigue syndrome or arthritis. Even after performing blood tests, the laboratory is not presenting an accurate distinction between symptoms of the patient and symptoms of the disease, and these unsure results are affecting the diagnosis of a patient. In the case above, the doctors used the laboratory results along with symptoms to diagnose the individuals and only one out of every four were diagnosed correctly. I think a new way to decipher between lyme disease and another illness has to be enforced because the way described above does not seem to be working effectively. Another reason for misdiagnose could be the lack of the disease in there particular area because if people are misdiagnosed there must be a problem (great, expand on your ideas).
The most reported cases directly affecting laboratories seems to be AIDS patients diagnosed in error. Two cases described above affected the patient emotionally and financially especially the man who went through treatment for six years and did not have the AIDS disease. Errors in the laboratory also affect the diagnosis the doctor gives to his patients because he assumes the tests returned are accurate.