WWTBAM Bored

My Dad, age 77, fell and hurt his side. He went to the doctor 2 days later because the pain was so bad he couldn't sleep. The doctor gave him an x-ray and said no broken ribs. My dad had no pain breathing so he figured it wasn't his ribs anyway. The doctor prescribed vicodin for my Dad, but didn't do an ultrasound nor an MRI. Shouldn't those tests be given to rule out other injuries? Should vicodin be given?

Not to be callous about it, but the evaluation and treatment your father got seems pretty standard. I'd need to know more about what body part/s exactly are hurt, how badly, and other associated symptoms; but what you're describing doesn't sound very odd to me.

This is one of the major issues of debate between physicians and patients: What testing can be done, versus what testing needs to be done.

Example:
Many people want an MRI of their knee when the regular X-ray is normal after injuring their knee In fact, an MRI is the test of choice for discovering what's wrong with the knee in such situations. But it is also very likely that the patient has a simple sprain/strain injury which will get better in a few days, or maybe week or two on the outside. It's then a choice between ordering an expensive and probably unneeded test or observing the patient to see if things improve as expected; if they don't improve as expected, then further testing would be indicated. A lot of people don't understand that watching and waiting is a medical management plan.

I fell at work and hit my side against those commercial soda tanks they used to use before switching to plastic-lined cardboard boxes, and they did a x-ray and a test to see if there was blood in my urine (and probably to see if there was drugs or alcohol so Workman's Comp would be off the hook, I'm sure). They found nothing and gave me painkillers. It hurt too bad to sit, so I leaned against the wall instead. It hurt to sleep and to breathe and I couldn't raise one arm.

It took a week to 10 days before I was 100%, and I was in my 20's.

Thanks for your reply and perspective.

I think we all want instant answers like they have on TV shows.

(I thought the vicodin was a little too much.)

Hello, Mini! wrote:... and they did a x-ray ...
It took a week to 10 days before I was 100%, and I was in my 20's.

They had x-rays back then?

geoffil wrote:Thanks for your reply and perspective.

I think we all want instant answers like they have on TV shows.

(I thought the vicodin was a little too much.)

So do insurance companies! My husband does rehab medicine, and it's hard to get payment for a course of treatment that takes a while rather than just a pill to make the pain go away.

He told me about the most recent case where they wanted to hurry this guy out of the hospital so they prescribed his therapy right away, and he had two broken legs AND two broken arms. Uhhh...no.

jsuchard wrote: This is one of the major issues of debate between physicians and patients: What testing can be done, versus what testing needs to be done.

Then there are patients (let's call this completely hypothetical patient "MarleysDad") who would think that the doctor is ordering a number of unnecessary tests simply to run up the bill.

I must be on Hello Mini's foe list.

I expected a scathing retort by now.

Rexer25 wrote:I must be on Hello Mini's foe list.

I expected a scathing retort by now.

You got skipped while I was making a real post! It's all your own fault!!!!!

Is the 25 in your name your IQ, or the year you were born....?

Hello, Mini! wrote:

Rexer25 wrote:I must be on Hello Mini's foe list.

I expected a scathing retort by now.

You got skipped while I was making a real post! It's all your own fault!!!!!

Is the 25 in your name your IQ, or the year you were born....?