Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Glaucoma / January 2004
I'm changing specialists. (long rant)
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Leigh Melton - 02 Jan 2004 05:25 GMT I was diagnosed back in November. As I posted before, my regular opthamologist wanted to send me to a glaucoma specialist to confirm her diagnosis and have all the tests done that she couldn't do (she has a small office here in our rural community and just doesn't have the equipment).
So I went to see Dr. D, supposedly the best glaucoma specialist in the state. He did the tests and praised my opthamologist for catching my glaucoma so early. He gave me a couple of freebie bottles of Xalatan and said to use one drop each eye before bed, told me to come back in a month, and that was that. Like, literally.
So I went home and did everything wrong of course and the next morning woke up with bright pink swollen eyeballs and I was alarmed. I called my regular opthamologist and got an emergency appointment immediately, only to be told that what I was experiencing was normal side-effects, not to worry. Whew, that was scary for a few hours. I was also shown the proper way to put in the drops (the squeeze at the base of the nose and all that). I thought to myself "why didn't the specialist tell me all of this and save me the first-day scare?" But whatever.
So time comes for my monthly check up with Dr D the specialist. That was Monday. I had a new concern: I have developed tics in both eyelids which sometimes last for up to 45 minutes (not seconds) and at times prevent me from seeing properly. I mentioned this to Dr D and asked him if this was a normal side-effect.
His response was "The REAL question is what the pressure is..." [flips through chart] "and it seems the answer is unchanged. So I'm going to change your drops."
I was a little taken aback by the lack of an answer to my question, and I ask "What about the side-effects, like the eyelid twitching?"
Response: "The side effects of the new drop will be different."
And he gets up to leave the room!
So I'm getting exasperated now, and ask "Okay, but what about the twitching? Andl what are the side effects of the NEW drop?"
He looks at me for a second and then says, "In some patients, respiratory distress." And then he DOES leave the room.
One of his assistants then leads me down the hall, hands me two bottles of Betimol and tells me to use one drop each eye first thing in the morning. And that is that.
So on the ride home all I can think of is "respiratory distress?" and when I get home I look up Betimol on the Web and yes I know that many patients can frighten themselves by doing their own research - but I found one of the major side effects of Betimol conflicted with my medical history.
The thing is, if he had discussed *just the three major side effects listed* I would have been able to tell him oops, looks like we have a problem here. Just as the first time he could have saved me some grief and the time of my regular opthamologist in explaining side effects and usage of Xalatan, again he saves the extra 90 seconds and exits stage right.
As I sat and thought about all of this, I made up my mind to not take the Betimol, see my regular opthamologist and explain the situation and let her take it from there, which she did yesterday. I have an appointment with a new glaucoma specialist, Dr G, in a couple of weeks. She checked my pressures and told me not to take the Betimol, but to let Dr G make his own fresh diagnosis.
I guess what I find so frustrating about this situation is that Dr D never made ANY attempt to communicate with me about my treatment. He didn't even tell me how to use the medications properly. When I asked about side effects, it seemed to annoy him ("what the REAL quesiton is..."). Well, we're even. He annoyed me, too.
This put me between that proverbial rock and its accompanying hard place. If I had used the Betimol and had had a bad reaction, I could see where it would be my fault for not *insisting* on information and taking control of my own health. Then again, if I did insist over and over that I needed more information to be an informed partner in my care, I can see how that would be construed as being a difficult patient and get the "who here went to medical school?" lecture. And to be fair there is some validity to that, but that is WHY I was asking for information in the first place! He knows, I don't. What's so hard about that?
In discussing this with my regular doctor, she told me that many patients do not want to know anything about the mechanics of their care, they find it scary and do not want to deal with it. Which is fine! I can see how some people could feel that way. I, however, am not one of those people and the simple fact that I asked questions should have been enough to alert Dr D of this, if he had had that as a concern.
So just as there are two types of patients - those who want to leave all in the hands of their doctors, and those who want to be informed - I think there are two types of doctors. Those, like my local opthamologist, who are ready and willing to answer all questions and address all concerns and keep the patient completely informed, and those, like Dr D, who either believe the patient is incapable of understanding the mechanics or who is "second guessing" a diagnosis or treatment by asking questions. Or maybe is just too busy to worry with things like patient questions, who knows.
Well, I found out that the two personality types don't mix, and I am hoping that my new specialist and I will mesh.
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to *know*. Without knowledge it's just too easy to be frightened. There is so much at stake here. I don't want to second guess anybody, but I do want to make sure that my doctor knows all he needs to know and sometimes that just can't be done by checking off the little boxes on a patient information sheet, just as it can't be left to a leaflet inserted in a box to tell me everything I need to know.
So that's my rant. My husband Joe says there ought to be a standard lecture for new glaucoma patients: "Welcome ot the World of Glaucoma!" =) While he's joking... to be honest, that would have been kind of nice. Live and learn.
Leigh
-- Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. - D. Duck
\( TN Artist, trish,tn \) - 02 Jan 2004 06:39 GMT Rant on Leigh ; ) I had this type of problems with LUNG specialist -and would you believe my Internist said " All PULMonary Doctors are nuts ? -( I LIKE HiM ) -I'm on my third PULM doc - the first would not listen , talked to his Recording machine most of my visiting time , giving it Wrong info about Me . and the second went to jail for medicare fraud. The glaucoma meds cause me extra breathing probs when I use them -but it's a risk I have to take because of the COPD & Glaucoma . Glaucoma meds are not good when you have lung problems. If a doctor resents your questions --find another -- that pulm doc that's in trouble9 DR. nO 2 ) seemed to have way too many patients --the wait was always 3 hours ! this I think is just wrong . I actually got a phobia to that small exam room ( 2 of the 3 hours , was in there ) so the last time I went to him I took -- a drink, a book , and my sketch book.
MC - 02 Jan 2004 06:55 GMT > So that's my rant. My husband Joe says there ought to be a standard > lecture for new glaucoma patients: "Welcome ot the World of > Glaucoma!" =) While he's joking... to be honest, that would have > been kind of nice. Live and learn. Sounds like there *is* such a standard lecture -- and you just wrote it!
It also sounds like you have a very good ophthalmologist.
John - 02 Jan 2004 08:19 GMT >I was diagnosed back in November. As I posted before, my regular >opthamologist wanted to send me to a glaucoma specialist to confirm [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > >Leigh And a literate well-written "rant" it is. However, you need to acknowledge the free-market economics that you really already know. You are not [directly] paying your doctors; a third party (Medicare, HMO, Insurance) is. And those third party payers naturally call the tune, and the tune is a pittance apiece for seeing lots of patients.
You must have noticed how much more accommodating (note I didn't say honest
:-) ) auto salesmen and real estate agents are than doctors? And why not, YOU are signing their pay checks rather than a "third party."
So, with many exceptions, that's the system. Get used to it and thank God for the Internet.
John
Sherry - 02 Jan 2004 15:01 GMT > I was diagnosed back in November. As I posted before, my regular > opthamologist wanted to send me to a glaucoma specialist to confirm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > told me to come back in a month, and that was that. Like, > literally. Leigh,
I'm so sorry to hear that you had such a bad experience with the glaucoma specialist. Mine was just the opposite. My GS (in Seattle, WA) is really into patient education. After the diagnosis, my husband & I were put in a little room to watch a couple of videos about glaucoma and glaucoma meds and the tech came in when they were done and asked if we had any more questions. We also walked away with a handful of brochures. Everyone there was so great! The appointment was at least a couple hours long!
After the initial diagnosis confirmation, I was followed by my regular ophth. I went through 6 different meds before we got to Xalatan, which was the only one that was either effective or didn't cause any side effects or allergic reactions. I was on that for 5 years before I had trabeculectomies (and surgery was done primarily because they had run out of meds to try!)
Unfortunately, doctors are really under pressure any more to "produce" and are seeing more patients than they really should be, especially glaucoma specialists. They are few and far between and I've been surprised to find out how many people have glaucoma. There's a specialist locator at http://www.glaucomaweb.org/locate.html.
Just getting a diagnosis of glaucoma can be scary enough. You might try locating a glaucoma support group in your area. Check the http://www.gsgd.org website for a listing of glaucoma support groups around the world (who have registered at that site - it's fairly new and we're still working on it) and also, the Wills Eye Hospital has an excellent site on glaucoma at http://www.wills-glaucoma.org, with chats and a BBS.
Good luck!
Sherry
Rick Cohn, M.D. - 02 Jan 2004 18:54 GMT Boy, Leigh, did you have a rough go of it...I'm sorry for your bad experience. Unfortunately, only recently have medical schools in this country started to work on training the "complete physician" who can both diagnose, treat, and communicate. That is sometimes a hard order to fill. I try to tread very lightly with new glaucoma patients. It is a scary diagnosis. People are afraid they'll go blind, naturally. I make sure to give a lot of reassurance that glaucoma is a VERY SLOW moving process in most patients, and in many, can be arrested or slowed further with appropropriate measures. I chose medications based on the ease of use and best side effect profile (that actually makes Xalatan most of our first choices). Very infrequently do I need to change a medication if I select it appropriately and educate the patient beforehand on what to expect. My favorite tool is to show patients a diagram of the inside of the eye on a dry erase board and draw pictures. Afterall, glaucoma is just a plumbing problem that causes damage elsewhere in the eye. The plumbing can either be fluid outflow from the eye or bloodflow to the eye. This is much easier to understand with pictures. There is nothing in glaucoma that is so complex that it can't be expressed in lay terms (and it can even be done quickly, but that is a true art). Most importantly, the doc must make sure EVERY question is answered. I never walk out till I'm sure you and I are on the same page. Keep hunting...I promise you the right glaucoma specialist is out there for you. If not, my door in Orlando is always open. Good luck. --Rick Cohn, MD Glaucoma specialist Winter Park, FL
phineasfogg - 07 Jan 2004 06:08 GMT Sorry to hear about your experience, but in my own experience I find such not uncommon...and not necssarily because of the mere "pittance" paid them by insurers.
Also, I think having a condition, treatment, meds and side-effects fully explained in lay terms is necessary and a minimum. Seeing a video is abdicating a responsibility. The information must be made pertinient to each individual patient (such as one with your particular history).
It has been my experience that few doctors in any specialty will take the time to do this. (I am treated for several conditions, including normal tension galucoma.)
As for side-effects, my opinion is that doctors are trained and see treatment and their ramifications from a different perspective. I don't believe they empathize with patients at all. They prescribe a treatment (eg meds) and expect the patient to tolerate whatver the side-effects may be, because they had deigned this approach the best way to go.
My first highly regarded GS prescribed Diamox; I trusted him completely and only after getting kidney stones did I learn it was a medication that neither my PCP (and then urologist) would not have recommended, and not because of any propensity or susceptibility on my part. I was never told beforehand of any potential side-effect for getting kidney stones, however unlikely.
The doctors see a side-effect as a necessary evil and don't think twice about it; as a patient, you do not have to. And of course, you should know about it -- from the GS-- beforehand. BTW the two GS I have seen are very highly regarded and seem more interested in research than patient care.
> I was diagnosed back in November. As I posted before, my regular > opthamologist wanted to send me to a glaucoma specialist to confirm [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > -- > Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. - D. Duck MC - 07 Jan 2004 06:32 GMT > Sorry to hear about your experience, but in my own experience I find such > not uncommon...and not necssarily because of the mere "pittance" paid them [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > about it -- from the GS-- beforehand. BTW the two GS I have seen are very > highly regarded and seem more interested in research than patient care. It is also up to the patient to *ask* *questions* -- especially about side effects and drug interactions.
For some reason many doctors -- not just ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists -- simply do not mention these.
phineasfogg - 07 Jan 2004 14:32 GMT Just to be perfectly clear, if I hadn't been--it is obvious that the patient should ask any doctor what the side-effects of meds may be (and the possible things that could go wrong with any procedure). I am referring to doctors who after being asked such, glibly answer "what's the alternative? or it's better than going blind" or give a cursory summary of the side-effects without considering the patient's history. Then, there are those MDs who minimize any side-effects and distort the various percentages or likelihood of any side-effect occurring. There are still other doctors who disclose a serious side-effect, but view it lightly because that side-effect is itself treatable. (eg kidney stones with Diamox, or cataracts with a trab). I have yet to encounter any genuine empathy from my specialists--it's almost as though the GS wants to really say "Take it or leave it, I've got other paying patients to treat."
> > Sorry to hear about your experience, but in my own experience I find such > > not uncommon...and not necssarily because of the mere "pittance" paid them [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > For some reason many doctors -- not just ophthalmologists and glaucoma > specialists -- simply do not mention these. MC - 07 Jan 2004 14:39 GMT > Just to be perfectly clear, if I hadn't been--it is obvious that the patient > should ask any doctor what the side-effects of meds may be (and the possible [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > though the GS wants to really say "Take it or leave it, I've got other > paying patients to treat." Yeah. There are many doctors who do that kind of thing. I don't know what the solution is. Except to say they don't *all* do it, and you can ask around.
If I were in your situation and anywhere near "our own" Dr. Cohen or Dr. Robert Ritch, I'd be on the phone to them, since they both display tremendous interest in us as patients, and all have the science any patient could ask for.
On the other hand, if it ever came down to such a decision I would always choose competence over bedside manner. I had a hernia repair done a couple of years ago by a doctor who had *no* bedside manner. In fact he gave every appearance of having no social skills whatsoever. But he's one of the best hernia surgeons in the country...
 Signature Schubert left a great work unfinished and died famous. Why not me?
phineasfogg - 08 Jan 2004 07:21 GMT I didn't want to reveal this to avoid any controversy, but I was treated by a very highly regarded GS at the NYEEI and am now with a top notch GS at Mt Sinai. I was/am not enthused with either, but then there is very little anyone (Harry Quigley included) can do about NTG. Top MDs do not want to admit there are limits to their greatness. [BTW, I agree--if I had a broken bone, I'd put up with an obnoxious orthpoedist who could fix the bone. However, no one can cure NTG or come close (they think they do), so I don't need the air of omnipotence.]
> > Just to be perfectly clear, if I hadn't been--it is obvious that the patient > > should ask any doctor what the side-effects of meds may be (and the possible [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Schubert left a great work unfinished and died famous. Why not me? Rick Cohn, M.D. - 10 Jan 2004 04:13 GMT > I didn't want to reveal this to avoid any controversy, but I was treated by > a very highly regarded GS at the NYEEI and am now with a top notch GS at Mt [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, no one can cure NTG or come close (they think they do), so I don't > need the air of omnipotence.] Maybe you should avoid the glaucoma specialists at large university hopsitals / teaching institutions. These doctors are well-known for their incredible egos. In addition, they often see 60 -70 patients a day in clinics where you are first worked-up by residents or fellows in training. Then the "world-reknowned" specialist has little time to spend with you. Many of us who see only 30-45 patients a day have much more time to spend and take the time to review side effects of medications, the risks of surgery, etc. In addition, we perform all of our own surgery, rather than having a fellow operate while we supervise. These doctors are well-published and speak at lectures all over the world, but are not necessarily known for interpersonal skills. On the other hand, you should be careful about lumping all ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists into one group. Obviously we are not all cast in the same mold. You've seen a couple of specialists in a city with dozens, so I think you're judging a little prematurely. --Rick Cohn, MD Glaucoma Specialist Winter Park, FL
Reason - 16 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT My Opthalmologist is excellent. However ...
I once refused to pay a specialist because he had failed to do his job adequately. His receptionist spoke to him. He spoke to me. I told him my reasons. He told me not to worry with the bill.
Assuming that you pay at the end of the consultation, maybe Leigh could have simply insisted at the desk that she would not pay until the consultation was completed.
If that did not give a satisfactory result, I would contact the relevant accrediting authority.
I live in Sydney, so the medical system is somewhat different.
Stephen
|
|
|