Pan scan

• Previous message: Pan scan
• Next message: Pan scan
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2/27/2012 9:21 PM, Jason Cillo wrote:
> I used to work at a place here in the U.S. where it wasn't uncommon for an uninjured patient without complaint to be flown in, met by the trauma team and found to have a normal exam, and then undergo pan-scan, solely based on mechanism alone - rollover MVC. Not to say that it doesn't have utility, but in many cases it seems thoughtless and unnecessary. A lot of negative tests to avoid the missed/delayed injury - but as some would not, this is the price to be paid for practice in the U.S., at least in some jurisdictions. Clearly it is not a simple issue, but the physical exam is not without merit.
>
> Consider - suppose the patient was your child? What would you want?
>
> ...Jason

I used to work with an ER doc who would order CTs (and labs, and 
everything else) on virtually everyone walking in through the doors 
regardless of complaint.  The primary indication for a CT scan was the 
presence of a patient, as I would often lament.

His wife is a risk management attorney.  'Nuff said.

LT

• Previous message: Pan scan
• Next message: Pan scan
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]