Ideas and Opinions18 October 2011
    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information

    The bedside evaluation, consisting of the history and physical examination, was once the primary means of diagnosis and clinical monitoring. The recent explosion of imaging and laboratory testing has inverted the diagnostic paradigm. Physicians often bypass the bedside evaluation for immediate testing and therefore encounter an image of the patient before seeing the patient in the flesh. In addition to risking delayed or missed diagnosis of readily recognizable disease, physicians who forgo or circumvent the bedside evaluation risk the loss of an important ritual that can enhance the physician–patient relationship.

    Patients expect that some form of bedside evaluation will take place when they visit a physician. When physicians complete this evaluation in an expert manner, it can have a salutary effect. If done poorly or not at all, in contrast, it can undermine the physician–patient relationship. Studies suggest that the context, locale, and quality of the bedside evaluation are associated with neurobiological changes in the patient. Recognizing the importance of the bedside evaluation as a healing ritual and a powerful diagnostic tool when paired with judicious use of technology could be a stimulus for the recovery of an ebbing skill set among physicians.

    References

    • 1. Han PKHistorical changes in the objectives of the periodic health examination. Ann Intern Med1997;127:910-7. [PMID: 9382370] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Silverman EMMurray TJBryan CSedsThe Quotable Osler. Philadelphia: American Coll Physicians; 2007:99. Google Scholar
    • 3. Verghese ACulture shock—patient as icon, icon as patient. N Engl J Med2008;359:2748-51. [PMID: 19109572] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Kugler JVerghese AThe physical exam and other forms of fiction [Editorial]. J Gen Intern Med2010;25:756-7. [PMID: 20502975] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Phoon CKMust doctors still examine patients? Perspect Biol Med2000;43:548-61. [PMID: 11058991] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Phoon CKEstimation of pressure gradients by auscultation: an innovative and accurate physical examination technique. Am Heart J2001;141:500-6. [PMID: 11231450] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Kerewsky-Halpern BTrust, talk and touch in Balkan folk healing. Soc Sci Med1985;21:319-25. [PMID: 4035420] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Morales EMeaning of touch to hospitalized Puerto Ricans with cancer. Cancer Nurs1994;17:464-9. [PMID: 7820824] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Barnett KA theoretical construct of the concepts of touch as they relate to nursing. Nurs Res1972;21:102-10. [PMID: 4481968] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Reilly BMInconvenient truths about effective clinical teaching. Lancet2007;370:705-11. [PMID: 17720022] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Barr DAGonzalez MEWanat SFThe leaky pipeline: factors associated with early decline in interest in premedical studies among underrepresented minority undergraduate students. Acad Med2008;83:503-11. [PMID: 18448909] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Young KPresence in the Flesh: The Body in Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Pr; 1997:7-45. Google Scholar
    • 13. Verghese AA touch of sense. Health Aff (Millwood)2009;28:1177-82. [PMID: 19597219] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Emerson RPower-dependence relations. Am Soc Rev1962;27:31-41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Tambiah SJThe form and meaning of magical acts: A point of view.. In: Horton R, Finnegan R, eds. Modes of Thought. London: Faber & Faber; 1973:199-220. Google Scholar
    • 16. Brady EedsHealing Logics: Culture and Medicine in Modern Health Belief Systems. Logan, UT: Utah State Univ Pr; 2001. Google Scholar
    • 17. Osler WValedictory address to the graduates in medicine and surgery McGill University. Can Med Surg J1874-75;3:433-42. Google Scholar
    • 18. Verghese AHorwitz RIIn praise of the physical examination [Editorial]. BMJ2009;339:b5448. [PMID: 20015910] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Finniss DGKaptchuk TJMiller FBenedetti FBiological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet2010;375:686-95. [PMID: 20171404] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Benedetti FCarlino EPollo AHow placebos change the patient's brain. Neuropsychopharmacology2011;36:339-54. [PMID: 20592717] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar