|
|
|
|
|
|
by guitarbill
2928 days ago
|
|
|
> I believe that negative outcomes are greater when someone goes to a "patient mill" vs a good doctor A dangerous belief to propagate without any data, insofar as it again trivializes the risk, i.e. "I'll be fine, I picked a good doctor". What makes a "good" doctor? More expensive? More likable? Nicer offices? For medically necessary procedures, data can be a bit of a double-edges sword, as it might make some doctors shy away from more difficult cases. For elective surgery, this actually sounds like a win. |
|
|
Exactly the crux of the issue- I've only been to one doctor for getting my LASIK procedure, so I'm not sure what the best combination of data points would make a "good" doctor.
For me, I researched all of the doctors in my area, read reviews on many different review websites (specifically paying attention to people who had complications and what they said about the doctor's follow-up attitude), picked a couple of doctors who looked right for me, and then had consultations with each of them.
I also paid attention to which doctors didn't downplay the negatives of the surgery- because some doctors absolutely play up the "it'll be great and it's totally safe and nothing bad ever happens!" and some are way more realistic about it being a major surgery with a serious risk of complications.