Errors occurring in the laboratory are not being reported to the public all the time; instead, they are kept behind closed doors. The errors could destroy the reputation of the hospital and laboratory if they ever leak out into the public. The public views don't you also mean that the doctor's offices and laboratories are viewed holistically? laboratories as a whole unit and not individually; so, the reputation of all laboratories will be in jeopardy if errors occurs. Cases are exposed to the public in a variety of ways which include law suits cases, newspapers, and magazine articles. Most reported cases are brought to the publics attention by the patients who have been falsely diagnosed. The different individuals (doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and patients individually) examining the results tend to interpret them in a variety of ways. These different ways could create problems for the individuals requesting the tests. For instance, if a blood test was examined by an experienced doctor and an insurance company, the ending results by each individual will vary. The doctor will reexamine the results returned, and he will make a diagnosis. On the other hand, the insurance company will rely solely on the result returned by the Clinical Laboratory Scientist, and they will be unable to detect any discrepancies in the results because they have a lack of knowledge in that particular field of study. You seem to have a lot to say in this opening. That is good, but you seem to jump from point to point. Work on fluency, on putting all of the ideas together so that they seem connected.
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 laboratoryhere, you follow the introduction with a discussion about doctors misdiagnosing patients. I realize that it is connected because you are going to follow up with a discussion about how this relates to problems in the lab. However, for a new reader, this seems to shift from one point to the next. It would be better to make your claim about whose at fault and then follow up with a discussion of misdiagnosing-as a matter of clarity and emphasis. 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, a laboratory should be burdened with the law suit cases if it was their error to begin with. The laboratory should not be overlooked by the patient just because the patient does not have direct contact with the laboratory. The laboratory should be held liable for its own actions and the same goes for the doctor. Whoever was the source behind the error, whether that be the laboratory or the doctor, he/she should be held accountable for his/her error. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes once in a while, but everyone should be able to take it upon themselves to admit to an error that has occurred.
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 dead at her apartment by an E.M.S, but three hours later she was discovered to be alive by a Medical Examiner who heard gurgling sounds coming from the woman (James A1)how frightening. 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. Any error of misdiagnosis affects the patient whether it be good or bad news. Laboratories play a major role in the diagnosis of individuals good to step and discuss here. expand your discussion to strengthen your point before going on with more examples. A similar scenario involves a miscalculation error that occurred in the accounting department of a large business firm. This error will directly affect that particular business, but it will not have a huge affect on other businesses. Errors that occur in other businesses can be used as examples, so errors will not occur in a person's own business. Relating back to the laboratory, errors occurring outside the laboratory in the medical world will not directly affect the laboratory, but those errors can be used as examples so those types of errors do not occur in the laboratory.
Another misdiagnosis case that involved the laboratory along with the doctors opinion was an AIDS diagnosis case. A man that was told he had the AIDS disease went through six years of treatment for the disease, but now doctors say he never had the disease at all this almost seems more like a mysterious healing than a misdiagnosis. I say that because he would have had several, if not hundreds, of blood tests run, wouldn't he?. 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. 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 I still think that over six years he would have had more than one test-something does not seem right with this story. These types of errors could be harmful to a patients (oops, be careful-watch for missed apostrophes) health. For example, in the case above the patient now has to deal with an addiction to Darvon along with other prescription drugs. I think positive tests should be tested twice, especially in AIDS testing, to confirm that the results are actually positive. One or two extra tests could have saved the man above from six years of unnecessary pain and suffering. Helping a doctor to diagnose an individual based upon the tests performed is the purpose of the laboratory. Hospitals set up a variety of tests based upon the symptoms of the patient, in hope that the tests will produce enough information to make a correct diagnosis. If an inconclusive outcome arises, than then 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 that laboratories are returning false-positive results on purpose. False-positive simply is a test that should come back as negative, but a positive test is 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 good to interject, but expand your thoughts and discuss them in relationship to what you have been talking about. In other words, what made you believe this and how does the evidence you have presented change your mind. 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. Hospitals and laboratories should care more about their patients, and they should be trying to avoid any unnecessary complications in the patient, especially stress and anxiety. Laboratories are having enough trouble avoiding error-free results without returning the false-positive tests on purpose. All of this shows that errors done on purpose or by mistake are affecting the lives of patients either emotionally or physically. These type of errors should by avoided if laboratories and hospitals wish to remain credible in society the discussion that you have added here has made this section stronger than your draft, now work on putting it all together more fluently-it reads a little as though you are responding to my questions and concerns instead of engaging in your own discussion.
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. The life insurance companies are only worrying about results, and they are not putting the patient's health into consideration. 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.
According to USA Today, an important factor that eaffects 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 ("Medical lab tests, often a matter..." 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 being misdiagnosed there must be a problem.
The most reported cases to the public involving laboratories are AIDS patients who are diagnosed in error. The cases described above affected the patients emotionally and financially especially the man who went through treatment for six years and did not have the AIDS disease. Thinking that an individual has AIDS is very traumatic on some patients especially when it is revealed that the patient is actually negative for 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. If the doctor makes a diagnosis mainly on the results received from the laboratory, he/she should not be held responsible if an error occurs. One reason for an inaccurate result from the laboratory could be due to blood samples being switched during the test process. One way to avoid mix-ups in samples is introducing a new bar coding system. A bar coding system will keep a patients identity unknown, especially in AIDS tests, and it will create an easier method of relating sample with the result. This will only decrease some of the errors that are occurring, but by taking one step at a time maybe a majority of the problems can be resolved.
The hardest thing word choice-try to be more specific than "things" to do is to come up with a pin point solution to all problems involving errors in the laboratory. Different solutions can be experimented, and if an improvement arises in the amount of laboratory errors then that solution should be implemented into the daily routine of the laboratory. False-positive results are only adding to the problems of the laboratory because laboratories are having a hard enough time producing accurate results without returning positive tests on purpose. By keeping a close eye on the laboratory suspected of doing this, we can maybe weed out the ones who have proven to be untruthful. The cases above that involved AIDS are very tragic, and the only way I can suggest to try to avoid these errors is to get you seem to shift here from talking to professionals to talking to patients, perhaps you should say "the only way to minimize the effects of errors is to recommend second opinions" ora second opinion. By having a second test done, a patient can confirm the result of the first test before any drastic measures are taken. It will avoid any mishaps like the mother-to-be who almost got an abortion because she thought she had the AIDS disease. If she was not told three days later, she probably would have went thought with the abortion. I think, if a discrepancy arises in a person's test results, then the patient knows that there is definitely a problem with the results, and they should contact another laboratory for confirmation. After reading the affects that errors can have on patients lives, every laboratory should try to avoid any errors that will cause unnecessary pain and suffering to a patient.
Best wishes to you-