Goodreads | Peter's review

Peter's review

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185897.How_Doctors_Think?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="How Doctors Think" border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/photo.goodreads.com/books/1172528425m/185897.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185897.How_Doctors_Think?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">How Doctors Think</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/108325.Jerome_Groopman">Jerome Groopman</a><br/><br/>
  <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1230250?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
  rating: 3 of 5 stars<br/>The premise is an intriguing one but it's stretched very thin in order to justify an entire book. I read the New Yorker article published on the same topic in anticipation of the book release and was impressed with the logical structure that Groopman applied to medical mistakes. I was hoping for a more detailed discussion of the same in the book and it failed for the most part. A good consideration of the role that uncertainty plays in physicians' decision making, but the ways  in which doctors deal with that uncertain appears to vary considerably from doctor to doctor making it difficult to identify patterns in the way they think. You can't answer the question of how doctors think if doctors don't really think alike. There are some good nuggets in there, though, that might be helpful for physicians trying to avoid the pitfalls of their own thinking or a patient trying to avoid the pitfalls of their physicians thinking - but the most important ones are addressed in the New Yorker article. Contributing to my disappointment was the fact that I recognized at least one of the chapters as having a prior life as a New Yorker article and got the feeling that there were probably others. I couldn't help but feeling a little conned. 
<br/>
<br/>However, I'm giving it 3 stars (instead of fewer) because, although I felt like the many case stories it contained were really just filler, I enjoyed reading them. Honestly, I enjoyed the whole book. I just expected a little more. Wait till they put the paperback out - I think I would have given it 4 stars if I hadn't sprung for the hardcover.
  <br/><br/><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/85484?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Peter's review
rating:

The premise is an intriguing one but it's stretched very thin in order to justify an entire book. I read the New Yorker article published on the same topic in anticipation of the book release and was impressed with the logical structure that Groopman applied to medical mistakes. I was hoping for a more detailed discussion of the same in the book and it failed for the most part. A good consideration of the role that uncertainty plays in physicians' decision making, but the ways in which doctors deal with that uncertain appears to vary considerably from doctor to doctor making it difficult to identify patterns in the way they think. You can't answer the question of how doctors think if doctors don't really think alike. There are some good nuggets in there, though, that might be helpful for physicians trying to avoid the pitfalls of their own thinking or a patient trying to avoid the pitfalls of their physicians thinking - but the most important ones are addressed in the New Yorker artic...more

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 1-1 of 1)

newest »

date

message 1: by Dave

06/01/2007 10:09AM

When did the essay you mention appear in The New Yorker?