Top Tweets for #GIx

Midjourney dropped plans to produce a full-body scanner this week. Tech people are calling doctors gatekeepers. Doctors are warning about over-investigation. The argument I keep seeing is: "You don't have to act on it." It assumes a patient who gets an ambiguous result, considers it calmly, and moves on. That person exists. They're not who shows up in my ER. What shows up is someone three days out from a scan, several hours into a Google spiral, now certain something is killing them. The decision to investigate comes from a place of anxiety, not information. There's no malpractice exposure for generating a finding. The liability attaches downstream to the radiologist who interprets it, the physician who acts on it, the system that absorbs it. The company that initiated the whole chain gets to call it "democratization of information". I'm not against biotech advancing. But advance means studies and rigor. We owe this to patients. It means data on what these scans actually find, how often those findings matter, and what happens to the people who chase them. And it means an honest conversation about who carries the medicolegal risk when that chain produces a bad outcome. My fear is that these companies will generate anxiety and hand the aftermath to the healthcare system to sort out.

70 PAGES OF RUBBISH FAXED TO MY OFFICE. A doctor is referring a patient to me for HEADACHE. The EMR is 70 pages long of every frickin diagnosis the patient ever had. Every medicine, surgery, allergy etc. the patient ever had. Medicine is being buried under documentation bloat: 70-page EMRs full of autogenerated narrative, but no clear patient story, no synthesis, and no human clinical reasoning. And this is for a patient with headaches. I know this is a very real frustration for small private practice offices.