Editorial Team
... Read More
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. Cookie Policy.
Written By: Editorial Team | Updated : April 29, 2014 3:55 PM IST
Dr Aniruddha Malpani, an IVF specialist and a vehement supporter of patient advocacy and information therapy tries to answer the eternal question that haunts modern day patients -- who should they go to first -- a general physician or a specialist?
Patients are often confused as to whether they should go to a GP (general practitioner, or family doctor or primary care physician) when they fall ill, or if they should seek out a specialist. Patients today have lots of choices and they feel that it's often more cost effective to go directly to the specialist. After all, isn't a specialist supposed to know more than your family doctor? So why waste time going to the GP? Also, patients often don't respect their GPs because they feel they are not well organized and up-to-date. The perception seems to be that GPs are jacks of all trades, and masters of none. And since most GPs just end up referring patients to specialists in any case, why not short cut the process and go directly to a specialist of your choice? (Read: Are doctors part of the healthcare problem?)
When someone falls ills, there are 2 important variables we need to consider the patient and the disease which is afflicting him. While specialists know a whole lot of stuff about the disease (they have read up on the latest research and understand all the molecular mechanisms of the disease), they know precious little about the patient. Most specialists are simply not interested in the patient (unless he happens to be a VIP) and know precious little about him.
This is because they have a very short term, episodic interaction with the patient, and once they have performed the procedure they specialize in, and the patient gets better, they are not likely to see him any more. They are more focused on treating the abnormality in the organ system they happen to specialize in. This is their area of core expertise - and because this is what they have a special interest in; they devote all their time and energy on understanding the disease, rather than the patient. Specialists should actually be called partialists, because of the limited view they have of the patient. They see lots of patients with a particular disease, and invest all their time and energy in furthering their research and special interests.
GPs on the other hand, know lots about the patient, because they interact with him over a long period of time. They understand the basics of a lot of diseases, and have a good understanding of the big picture. However, they need to inspire confidence in the patient, by keeping better records, so the patient knows that he is in safe hands.
In the best of all possible worlds, you would find a doctor who would marry the best of both worlds an interest in you as a person, and deep technical expertise about the disease you happen to have. While this can be hard to find, the good news is that patients can help to bridge the gap. Not only are they the true experts on themselves, they can now find out enough technical information on their disease, so they can have intelligent , well-informed conversations with their specialist and family physician.
he author Dr Aniruddha Malpani is an IVF specialist who is also very passionate about improving patient knowledge and patient-doctor relationships. He is a pioneer in the field of information therapy the right information at the right time for the right person and blogs at https://blog.drmalpani.
Also read Dr Malpani's other articles on doctor-patient relationships, patient advocacy and healthcare:
For more articles on healthcare, visit our healthcare section. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for all the latest updates! For daily free health tips, sign up for our newsletter. And to join discussions on health topics of your choice, visit our forum.
