[診斷理論] 醫者,小道也!

Kunfu

十年前的我,看了某本講clinical pitfalls的書,陷入的緊張兮兮的狀態,看什麼病都會怕,無法作出適切的臨床決斷。

偶然的機會聽了一位德國漢學老教授對清代醫學名家徐大椿於清乾隆22年(西元1757年)所出版的「醫學源流論」的演講,他認為中醫的理論可以補足西方醫學的缺陷。原來西醫依靠病史和理學檢查來診斷疾病的方法,在中醫老早就有見解,我反而藉由一位外國的學者講演才認識中醫的豊富遺產,仔細去讀這本書,愈能發現徐大樁的智慧,也讓我把偏離的觀念重新導正回來。

"症脈輕重論"

人之患病,不外七情六淫,其輕重死生之別,醫者何由知之?皆必問其症,切其脈而後知之。然症脈各有不同,有現症極明而脈中不見者,有脈中甚明而症中不見者。其中有宜從症者,有宜從脈者,必有一定之故。審之既真,則病情不能逃,否則不為症所誤,必為脈所誤矣。

白話大概就是醫生如何知道病患到底患了什麼病?必需先問病史,再來作理學檢查而後診斷。有些疾病表現的症狀就很明顯了,但理學檢查卻沒什麼發現,而有些疾病卻正好相反。診斷疾病要把病史和理學檢查好好審視分析,如單看病史或理學檢查一樣,就容易發生誤診的情況。如遇到幼兒一陣陣的哭鬧腹痛,甚到會把腿縮起了,但來看醫生時不痛了,也無壓痛或腹膜炎徵象,雖然理學檢查看似正常,但病史卻告訴我們要懷疑腸套疊。或如一個病患抱怨上腹痛,如果理學檢查只去觸診上腹,但沒有去檢查右下腹,也許就錯過了一個闌尾炎。

"臨病人問所便論"

病者之愛惡苦樂,即病情虛實寒熱之徵。醫者望免切脈而知之,不如其自言之為尤真也。惟病者不能言之處,即言而不知其所以然之故,則賴醫者推求其理耳。今乃病者所自知之病,明明為醫者言之,則醫者正可因其言而知其病之所在以治之。乃不以病人自知之真對症施治,反執己之偏見強制病人,未有不誤人者。

其實很多病在與病人聊天中間就可以得到診斷,甚至不用進行理學檢查。有時候病患也告訴醫生一大堆症狀,但是病患卻不了解這和他所患的疾病相關,這部份就要靠醫生的推理來獲得正確的診斷。所以很多時候,醫生可以靠病患所陳述之病情而診斷其病而治之,最怕是連病患自己都作出正確的診斷,醫者反堅持已見而強治病患。例如一老人家突然發生頭暈的症狀,並告知醫生同時間又有右手麻的情形,從病史來說要懷疑中風,但一開始理學檢查也無發現肢體無力、複視、小腦失調等現象,卻把右手麻當作緊張或心理因素看待,而當一般的頭暈處理,卻不知病人已明明白白告訴醫生他中風了,只要詳細的作神經學檢查就會發現右手確有感學異常的現象,而需以中風流程處理。

"知病必先知症論"

凡一病必有數症。有病同症異者,有症同病異者,有症與病相因者,有症與病不相因者。蓋合之則曰病,分之則曰症。古方以一藥治一症,合數症而成病,即合數藥而成方。其中亦有以一藥治幾症者,有合幾藥而治一症者。又有同此一症,因不同用藥亦異,變化無窮。學醫者當熟讀《內經》,每症究其緣由,詳其情狀,辨其異同,審其真偽,然後遍考方書本草,詳求古人治法。一遇其症,應手輒愈,不知者以為神奇,其實古聖皆有成法也。

每個疾病必有其相關的症狀。如一個急性腸胃炎,有人吐的多、有人拉的多、有人發燒也有人不發燒。腸胃炎有腹痛、發燒、吐拉等現象,但闌尾炎有也相同的現象,只是二者症狀發生的順序不同,且起每個相同症狀其細節特色也不同。而在病患告知醫生的一堆症狀中,醫生必需推理出何者是相關而什麼是不相關的症狀,要仔細的推敲每個症狀的特性是否符合診斷疾病其症狀的表現,如不符合是否有更適當的診斷來解釋所有的症狀,切勿心存定見,只相信自己要相信的,而自己不相信的線索卻置之不理,這樣反而會誤入歧途作出不正確的診斷。

醫學源流論開宗明義講[醫者,小道也,精義也,重任也,賤工也。古者大人之學,將以治天下國家,使無一夫不被其之近,不能兼及。況乎不可治者,又非使能起死者而使之生,其道不已小乎?]

老袓宗都跟你講醫學小道也,別老把自己當神(科學),也別把病患教育當醫學是神(科學),也許基礎醫學是科學,但臨床實踐絕不是科學,就算實証醫學也不是科學,頂多也只是統計機率之學。臨床醫學是不確定的學科,是哲學智能的實踐,醫界自身都搞不清狀況,醫療訴訟也只是剛好而已。

(如果你看完覺得有道理,按個讚,使觀念傳遞出去。)

 

Written by LW LIN, MD.

註,V6是周星馳迷,請忍耐V6大量的周星馳截圖,因為史帝芬周老師的談話,充滿著診斷推理的智慧之言喔!

圖片來自http://wiki.komica.org/

2 則迴響於《[診斷理論] 醫者,小道也!

  1. 這篇文章引用古文,說明理學檢查與病史詢問的重要理論,而實際因為理學檢查與病史詢問而造成的診斷遺憾,比例有多大呢? 有一篇統計是36%。該研究以急診誤診的 案例分析原因,其中clinical data gathering 就是指理學檢查與病史詢問。 原文如下:

    Background: Reilly et al described a structured approach to the analysis of diagnostic errors by using a novel, modified fishbone diagram. However, the application of this tool in emergency medicine had not been reported. The aim of this study was to identify complex diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) of a community hospital by adopting the modified fishbone diagram.

    Methods: Sixty one cases of diagnostic errors involving ten board-certified emergency physicians (EPs) were identified through peer review process. Using a qualitative study approach, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with EPs. All interview audiotapes were transcribed verbatim. We performed content analysis on all textual data to identify the factors underlying errors using modified fishbone diagram.

    Results: In 61 cases, we identified 165 diagnostic errors (2.7 per case). The underlying contributions to errors fell into 7 categories: cognitive error( 54/61,88%),knowledge gap(32/61,52%),clinical data gathering(22/61,36%),organization issues(12/61,20%),affective related(9/61,15%),context of care(9/61,15%),communication(5/61,8%).The most common cognitive factors included anchoring bias, blink obedience, and premature . One of the most prominent problems, associated knowledge gap, occurred primarily due to insensitivities of EPs to recognize various presentation of a specific disease in different stages. Failure to perform focused physical examination was the most frequent problem in the category of clinical data gathering. In the category of organizational issues, failure to provide appropriate follow up mechanism contributed most to the cause of diagnostic errors. In the category of affective factors, negative moods most likely arose from long work hours in the ED. In the context of care, delay in consultation was the major problem. Finally, in the category of communication, poor quality of communication occurred primarily during patient handoff or consultation.

    Conclusion: The modified fishbone diagram is a useful tool to perform root cause analysis on diagnostic errors in ED. These findings provide a basis on which to build a framework for teaching EPs how to avoid misdiagnosing in the ED setting. Additionally, the results point out important organizational problems that require improvement.

發表迴響