how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why.
They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
Some GPs make extremely stupid mistakes.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."