Product Description

A New Yorker staff writer, best-selling author, and professor at Harvard Medical School unravels the ultimate medical mystery: how doctors figure out the best treatments -- or fail to do so. On average, a physician will interrupt a patient describing her symptoms within twelve seconds. In that short time, many doctors decide on the likely diagnosis and best treatment. Often, decisions made this way are correct, but at crucial moments they can also be wrong -- with catastrophic consequences. In this myth-shattering book, Jerome Groopman pinpoints the forces and thought processes behind the decisions doctors make. He explores why doctors err and shows when and how they can -- with our help -- avoid snap judgments, embrace uncertainty, communicate effectively, and deploy other skills that can have a profound impact on our health. This book is the first to describe in detail the warning signs of erroneous medical thinking, offering direct, intelligent questions patients can ask their doctors to help them get back on track. Groopman draws on a wealth of research, extensive interviews with some of the country's best physicians, and his own experiences as a doctor and as a patient. He has learned many of the lessons in this book the hard way, from his own mistakes and from errors his doctors made in treating his own debilitating medical problems. How Doctors Think reveals a profound new view of twenty-first-century medical practice, giving doctors and patients the vital information they need to make better judgments together.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #39756 in Books
• Published on: 2007-03-19
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 307 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780618610037
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. SignatureReviewed by Perri KlassI wish I had read this book when I was in medical school, and I'm glad I've read it now. Most readers will knowJerome Groopman from his essays in the New Yorker, which take on a wide variety of complex medical conditions, evocatively communicating the tensions and emotions of both doctors and patients.But this book is something different: a sustained, incisive and sometimes agonized inquiry into the processes by which medical minds—brilliant, experienced, highly erudite medical minds—synthesize information and understand illness. How Doctors Think is mostly about how these doctors get it right, and about why they sometimes get it wrong: "[m]ost errors are mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we do not readily admit to and often don't realize." Attribution errors happen when a doctor's diagnostic cogitations are shaped by a particular stereotype. It can be negative: when five doctors fail to diagnose an endocrinologic tumor causing peculiar symptoms in "a persistently complaining, melodramatic menopausal woman who quite accurately describes herself as kooky." But positive feelings also get in the way; an emergency room doctor misses unstable angina in a forest ranger because "the ranger's physique and chiseled features reminded him of a young Clint Eastwood—all strong associations with health and vigor." Other errors occur when a patient is irreversibly classified with a particular syndrome: "diagnosis momentum, like a boulder rolling down a mountain, gains enough force to crush anything in its way." The patient stories are told with Groopman's customary attention to character and emotion. And there is great care and concern for the epistemology of medical knowledge, and a sense of life-and-death urgency in analyzing the well-intentioned thought processes of the highly trained. I have never read elsewhere this kind of discussion of the ambiguities besetting the superspecialized—the doctors on whom the rest of us depend: "Specialization in medicine confers a false sense of certainty." How Doctors Think helped me understand my own thought processes and my colleagues'—even as it left me chastened and dazzled by turns. Every reflective doctor will learn from this book—and every prospective patient will find thoughtful advice for communicating successfully in the medical setting and getting better care.Many of the physicians Dr. Groopman writes about are visionaries and heroes; their diagnostic and therapeutic triumphs are astounding. And these are the doctors who are, like the author, willing to anatomize their own serious errors. This passionate honesty gives the book an immediacy and an eloquence that will resonate with anyone interested in medicine, science or the cruel beauties of those human endeavors which engage mortal stakes. (Mar. 19)Klass is professor of journalism and pediatrics at NYU. Her most recent book is Every Mother Is a Daughter, with Sheila Solomon Klass.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post
Reviewed by David Brown

Why is it that How Doctors Think is likely to find an audience while How Automotive Engineers Think would be a tough sell, and How Bookkeepers Think wouldn't have a prayer?

Part of the reason is that most of us believe, rightly or wrongly, that our lives might one day depend on the right decision by a doctor -- a belief we share about few other occupations. Most, as well, have watched doctors work, an experience, whether good or bad, that tends to lend an oracular quality to what a doctor does. And then there's the drama and heroism that's supposed to be -- and occasionally is -- part of medicine.

Jerome Groopman, a physician at Harvard Medical School who is also a writer for the New Yorker, does not debunk the notion of medical "exceptionalism." His book contains all kinds of smart, often selfless, occasionally heroic doctors making good decisions and sometimes saving lives. But it is far from a narcissistic paean to his profession. It is an effort to dissect the anatomy of correct diagnosis, successful treatment and humane care -- and also of diagnostic error, misguided therapy and thoughtless bedside manner. His task is to offer practical advice to both patients and physicians. He succeeds at both.

Groopman catalogues the many species of clinical errors, a whole taxonomy of misperceptions and wrong conclusions illustrated with real examples offered as representative types. All are fascinating, a few are chilling.

Into the latter category falls the case of a woman who for 15 years suffered from chronic diarrhea, vomiting and eventually anemia, osteoporosis and severe weight loss. Doctors said she had anorexia, bulimia and irritable bowel syndrome -- a proliferation of diagnoses that should have been a hint they were wrong. After initially resisting, she had come to accept this explanation of her problem, dutifully taking antidepressants and forcing down 3,000 calories of largely indigestible food each day. By the time she consulted one of Groopman's colleagues at Beth Israel Deaconness Hospital in Boston, she weighed 82 pounds. He diagnosed celiac disease, an allergy to the protein gluten found in many grains. The disease denudes the inner surface of the small intestine, reducing its ability to absorb nutrients; it explained all her symptoms.

The woman "was fitted into the single frame of bulimia and anorexia nervosa from the age of twenty," writes Groopman. "It was easily understandable that each of her doctors received her case within that one frame. All the data fit neatly within its borders. There was no apparent reason to redraw her clinical portrait, to look at it from another angle.

Many of the mistakes Groopman describes are variants of this one. They come from the physician's inability to keep his or her mind open, a reluctance to abandon initial impressions or received wisdom, and a willingness to ignore (often unconsciously) contradictory evidence. At the same time, the facts of biology rightly steer physicians away from endlessly pursuing improbable diagnoses -- a truth captured in such medical-school aphorisms as: "When you hear hoofbeats, don't immediately think of zebras" and "Don't forget that common things are still common."

"It is a matter," Groopman writes, "of juggling seemingly contradictory bits of data simultaneously in one's mind and then seeking other information to make a decision, one way or another. This juggling . . . marks the expert physician -- at the bedside or in a darkened radiology suite."

This need for self-awareness during the act of thinking and working extends to the physician's emotional state and personal beliefs. How a doctor feels about a patient can have a major effect on the care provided to people who are obese, poor, stupid, mentally ill, addicted, foreign, criminal, deviant or ill-smelling -- as well as to those who are rich, powerful, famous, personally familiar or smarter than the doctor.

Groopman doesn't go much into the sociology of medicine, which is unfortunate because it has quite a bit to do with laying the groundwork for the cognitive errors he describes. Many medical students and doctors are surprisingly incurious about human narrative, to which they have almost unparalleled access. Most have little exposure to unintelligent, inarticulate or life-weary people. Few have done manual labor or been in the position of taking orders rather than giving them (outside of medical training, that is). Many are poor listeners and like to hear themselves talk. If it is true, as one is taught in medical school, that 80 percent of diagnoses can be made purely on the medical history -- what the patient says before the physical exam or any tests are done -- these traits can be impediments to good care.

So what is Groopman's advice for ways to help doctors think better?

An entire chapter illustrates the first commandment of pediatrics: Always take seriously the mother's theory of what's happening, no matter how harebrained it sounds. Patients should feel free to voice what they suspect the doctor may be thinking. "With a disarming sense of humor, she communicated that she understood she fit a certain social stereotype, and that stereotype had caused her doctors to fail to fully consider her complaints," Groopman notes admiringly of a patient who admitted she was "a little crazy" but doubted that menopause was the cause of her severe headaches and crawling skin. (She turned out to have a tumor that floods the body with hormones.) Another doctor tells Groopman she was helped when her patient said, "Don't save me from an unpleasant test just because we're friends."

Simple questions can help refocus a physician's attention: "What's the worst thing this can be?" and "What body parts are near where I am having my symptom?" Before calling the pediatrician, parents should ask themselves "what it is that scares them the most about their child's condition." And everyone should be leery of lazy generalities: "No one -- no doctor, no patient -- should ever accept, as a first answer to a serious event, 'We see this sometimes.' "

For their part, doctors should be wary of diagnoses that appear instantly obvious. Groopman quotes one doctor who jumped to the conclusion that a woman had pneumonia when, in fact, she had an aspirin overdose, which can cause some of the same signs and symptoms. "I learned from this to always hold back, to make sure that even when I think I have the answer, to generate a short list of alternatives."

Groopman notes that having adequate time to think helps (but of course doesn't guarantee) good decision making. Much of medicine, however, is practiced with the consumer waiting for the product to be delivered, whether it's the proposed work-up, the diagnosis, the treatment options or the long-term prognosis. This expectation of instant knowledge and service is something few people would consider reasonable for tasks such as having a will drawn up or even getting a pair of skates sharpened. This is perhaps worth keeping in mind as doctors are increasingly asked to do more in shorter appointments for the same or less money.

When it comes to medical care, we Americans want everything -- limitless access to drugs, diagnostic studies, surgical procedures, experimental therapies. We might want to push the system to give us more of the most potent intervention in medicine -- a doctor with time to think and talk.

Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

From Bookmarks Magazine
Jerome Groopman, Harvard professor of medicine, AIDS and cancer researcher, and New Yorker staff writer in medicine and biology, isn't new to the popular medical-writing scene. Before How Doctors Think, he penned three other books—The Anatomy of Hope, Second Opinions, and The Measure of Our Days—that explore the role of art in the hard science of medicine. Here, Groopman's readable prose emphasizes the human element, the give-and-take so important to successful diagnosis and treatment. One critic, however, compares the book's medical pyrotechnics to an episode of the medical show House, while another takes issue with the author's stance against Big Pharma. For the most part, critics see Groopman's latest effort as a compelling meditation on the interactions between doctors and patients—an effort reminding us that mistakes and miscommunications can be minimized but not eliminated.

Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc.

Customer Reviews

"As many as 15 percent of all diagnoses are inaccurate...a distressingly high rate of misdiagnosis."
This alarming statistic introduces Dr. Jerome Groopman's compelling analysis of how doctors think--and what this means for patients seeking diagnoses. Groopman is curious to discover how one doctor misses a diagnosis which another doctor gets. Interviewing specialists in different fields, he analyzes the ways they approach patients, how they gather information, how much they may credit or discredit the previous medical histories and diagnoses of these patients, how they deal with symptoms which may not fit a particular diagnosis, and how they arrive at a final diagnosis.

Throughout, he considers the doctors' time constraints, the pressures on them to see a certain number of patients each day, the limitations on tests which are imposed by insurance companies or by hospitals themselves, and the many options for treating a single disease. He is sympathetic, both toward the patient and the physician, and, because he himself has had medical problems, he provides insights from his own experience to show how physicians (and patients) think.

Case histories abound, beginning with the 82-pound woman, whose celiac disease was not diagnosed for fifteen years. Here Groopman analyzes the uses and misuses of clinical decision trees and algorithms used by many doctors and hospitals to assess probabilities and make decision-making more efficient. Sometimes, however, it is necessary for a doctor to depart from the algorithm and obey intuition. Recognizing when the physician is "winging it"--depending too much on intuition and too little on evidence--is a challenge for both patients and other physicians. Ultimately, Groopman focuses on language as the key to diagnosis, showing that when patients and physicians can communicate and truly share information, they have a better chance to come to correct diagnoses and appropriate treatments.

The success of Groopman's book attests to the need for discussion of these issues, but I am not sure Groopman realizes the difficulty patients have in finding ideal doctors whose personalities, thinking, and communication styles are compatible with their own. Most of us are referred to specialists by our primary care physicians (some of whom we see only once a year and do not know well), and it is not possible to interview several specialists to find the one most compatible. We accept the appointment our primary care physician has set up for us, often with the specialist who has the earliest available appointment. Patients with urgent problems may have fewer choices than Groopman seems to think they have. Though we all search for the ideal, ultimately we must hope that our own diagnoses are not among the "problem fifteen percent." (4.5 stars) n Mary Whipple

A Disappointment
Jerome Groopman's "How Doctors Think" has been given generally favorable reviews in the lay press and many readers have echoed that praise. From this physician's point of view, the book is a disappointment.

On the positive side, Dr. Groopman's book is an attempt to bring to light some issues surrounding errors in medicine, a topic that is not discussed often enough in the medical and general literature. He discusses how physicians can make cognitive errors when they attempt distill an array of scattered bits of information in order to arrive at a conclusion to the question: what condition is this patient suffering from? He also tries to identify forces in the current American medical system that undermine a physician's ability to think more broadly and deeply about a patient's illness. His limited efforts in these areas can be a helpful starting point for patients, medical students, and physicians who are beginning to grapple with a simple fact: doctors are human, and they make mistakes.

On the negative side, Dr. Groopman offers little in the way of concrete suggestions for clinicians to fix the problems he identifies. He indicates the current system is driving physicians to see more patients in less time, but offers no realistic proposals for doctors or patients that would allow for a less hurried atmosphere. He makes a number of suggestions on how physicians can think more clearly: think outside the box, be wary of "going with your gut", don't judge a patient by her outward appearance, be prepared in your mind for the atypical patient, consider the possibility of more than one diagnosis, and other pearls of wisdom. While they are good recommendations, they fall far short of a concrete program for improving one's diagnostic skills and thought processes. His only idea for improving medical training seems to be to push clinicians to ask themselves the above questions more often. If this was new, it would be worthy of all the praise that has been heaped on this book, but it honestly is not very new, and is simply a variation on the same ideas of how to better train clinicians that we have been working with since at least the 1970s. Given the current state of the American medical system, these old ideas clearly aren't enough, and Dr. Groopman's recommendations that we continue this strategy, only with more emphasis than before, leaves the reader desiring useful solutions feeling like he has been pushed out into the stream with only a toothpick for a paddle.

Perhaps a physician's yearning for some answers from Dr. Groopman is asking too much. But even from a patient's point of view, given the harrowing stories that lead up to his epilogue, the few extra questions he suggests patients use to push the physician ("Is it possible I have more than one problem?") seem unimpressive. Given the severity of time constraints that Groopman very correctly describes, his dearth of suggestions for patients to assist their doctors and work as a team to make the most of their short time together makes this book of only limited value for the non-physician as well.

One of the great shames of the book is that, despite his clearly delineating the problems physicians face, Dr. Groopman rejects the modern tools that have been developed to aid physicians in diagnosis: evidence-based medicine, clinical algorithms, and practice guidelines. He glibly dismisses these tools again and again, arguing they "constrain" a doctor's thinking and fail "when symptoms are vague... or when test results are inexact." He goes at length to describe one oncology fellow using a particular hematology scoring system to make a poor choice of a treatment plan for a particular patient. Yet the text makes clear the fellow was applying the scoring system incorrectly. Dismissing diagnostic tools because some people misuse them is like telling someone a wrench is not a useful tool for anything because someone once used a wrench to hammer in a nail. Diagnostic tools and practice guidelines, when used in a measured way, can help physicians accurately diagnose many patients without subjecting them to a punishing series of unnecessary diagnostic procedures. Evidence-based medicine helps us determine what works and, perhaps even more importantly, what doesn't. Instead of a balanced discussion of the benefits and limitations of such diagnostic aids, he simply throws the baby out with the bath water.

The most insidious aspect of the book is the underlying suggestion that when a patient does not get a swift, accurate diagnosis of what ails them, it can always be traced back to some logical or other intellectual error on the part of the physician. The fact is some conditions will, for the foreseeable future, elude our best efforts to diagnose them. He brings up an example of a man with chest pain who was sent home from the ER, but then had a heart attack several hours later. In truth, we cannot differentiate all patients with cardiac chest pain from those without cardiac chest pain with 100% accuracy. This is never stated in the text, and only briefly mentioned in the chapter notes buried at the end of the book. Right now, somewhere in America, even with the best tests and the best diagnostician at the bedside, someone with chest pain will be sent home from the ER, only to have a heart attack a short time later. While Dr. Groopman goes on at length to humanize the patients he writes about, his overall argument dehumanizes physicians, holding them up to standards of accuracy that our current body of knowledge cannot support.

Even if it isn't providing many useful solutions, this book is at least raising some important questions. Take this book with a grain of salt (and perhaps even two tablets of aspirin). It is encouraging that we are openly discussing the subject of errors in medicine. It would be a great shame, though, if this book were the last word on the subject.

The Patient: Leader of the Healthcare Team
"Patients and their loved ones swim together with physicians in a sea of feelings. Each needs to keep an eye on a neutral shore where flags are planted to warn of perilous emotional currents". Jerome Groopman

The Patient: as an undergrad in college in my nursing program, I was educated to understand that I always needed to listen to my patient, really listen. That philosophy has always served me well. Health care providers tend to be controlling, and when we, the patients, are given a diagnosis that shakes us to our core we need some control. As patients we need a physician and health care team that has the patient as the leader of the team. We listen to all of the recommendations and weigh the evidence as best we can. In the end we need to be able to trust our physicians and have a relationship that allows humor and sadness, questions and answers and honest give and take. It is a relationship like no other- it is sometimes life and death.

Jerome Groopman has written a book for everyone. Everyone needs to be their own advocate for their healthcare. His ideas that the way physicians think result in the treatment and care for each and every one of us. "Every doctor makes mistakes in diagnosis and treatment," he writes. "But the frequency of those mistakes, and their severity, can be reduced by understanding how a doctor thinks and how he or she can think better." He discusses the physicians who 'read' x-rays and CT's and MRI's, the radiologist. An exacting science is needed here. A radiologist with experience can pick up a disease process by the thickness of a rib. There is an accepted 'error' ratio in this science, and none of us want to be in that error ratio. There is a computer program to assist in diagnosis, but it is not perfect. We all want and need the experienced radiologist. When I entered the world of health care I learned that medicine is 50% rule out or question of. It remains in that corner. That is how we want our physicins to think-rule out #1,2,3 and come to a conclusion based on science, best practice and their ability to put it all together for us, the individual.

He helps the layperson understand doctors' thinking with simple and accessible terms that suggest why it sometimes leads to undesired outcomes. As David Kessler in his reviews states "He introduces us to terms such as "diagnosis momentum" -- when a diagnosis becomes fixed in the mind of the physician despite incomplete evidence. Or "availability," which means the tendency to judge the likelihood of a medical event by the ease with which relevant examples come to mind. He takes phrases patients often hear, such as "we see this sometimes" and puts forth the idea that such generic comments deserve further questioning from the patients."

Dr Groopman has written of fascinating case studies and the physicians who were part of them. The errors and the asute diagnoses are compiled in story after story. Physicians are open about the way and the analytical methods they use in deliniating the final diagnosis. It is difficult to forget the misfortunes of some patients. We understand a little more completely the real-life drama that physicians face in their mistakes and when their diagnosis is right on.

We learn about Bayesian Perspective thinking. "We all like to know how reliable and how risky certain situations are, and our increasing reliance on technology has led to the need for more precise assessments than ever before. Such precision has resulted in efforts both to sharpen the notions of risk and reliability, and to quantify them. Quantification is required for normative decision-making, especially decisions pertaining to our safety and well being. Increasingly in recent years Bayesian methods have become key to such quantifications." says Dr Groopman. The thought processes of physicians is an insight few of us have thought about. We should all be prepared for our next encounter.

It was refreshing to learn of Dr Groopman's frustrations with his medical care, and the four different opinions he received about his right hand. He carefully delineates how each physician came to their conclusion, and this is the type of thinking we need to engage in. We all have our stories of healthcare, and this book will give us more insight into the 'whys and wherefores' of our physicians' thought processes.

"Dr. Groopman gives a brief mention of how modern evidence-based medicine competes with the art of using your intuition. He touches on how drug and insurance companies pressure doctors as he explores their influence via big drug company sales representatives. I would have liked him to have written more about the influence of insurance companies, an area barely touched on, and about finances. This might have given readers a more complete picture of the intersection of medicine and finances." David Kessler

Most of us will be left with more respect for the art of medicine, and the careful consideration Groopman's doctors give to their patients. "How Doctors Think" is a book every patient needs to read. We, the patients have much more power than we know, and we can change the shape of the physician/patient relationship. We need to come to the doctor's office prepared to ask the right questions so that our physician's thought processes will be beneficial to both of us.
Highly Recommended. prisrob 4-01-07

The Anatomy of Hope: How People Prevail in the Face of Illness

The Measure of Our Days: A Spiritual Exploration of Illness