Author/Authors :
Utpal, D Medical College and Hospital - Department Of Surgery, India , Sayak, R Medical College and Hospital - Department Of Surgery, India , Amitesh, A Medical College and Hospital - Department Of Surgery, India , De, K K Medical College and Hospital - Department Of Surgery, India
Abstract :
Incidence of prediction of primary corporeal physical diagnosis depends on, a) data obtained from history taking (74% - 76%), b) signs noticed on physical examination (12% – 25%) and c) results of laboratory investigations (11% - 15%)1. This age old “search and seek” method for diagnosis has shifted to results of laboratory tests because physicians are more away from bedside and rely increasingly on diagnostic and laboratory tests even when such foreys produce clinical information that costs more and means less2. Moreover the illumination of these high profile diagnostic technologies in public domain has resulted in the pri foreys mary elements of diagnosis being followed in a reverse order and consequently led to a major erosion of “the science and art of clinical examination” 3. This article illustrates a case series of errors in history taking, casual approach to clinical examination and irrational and injudicious use of laboratory investigations and the results thereof
