Are Doctors “Too Good” for a checklist?

   

          Gawande does a wonderful job describing the ways in which hospitals can remarkably reduce error via checklists. Despite the stunning evidence and substantial difference a simple checklist can make, I am baffled as to why hospitals across the nation have yet to adopt such system. Although Gawande touches upon such reasons, I wonder if physicians are not taking these checklists seriously because of egotistical reasons. They are undoubtedly effective and empirically proven so why not? It is possible that doctors’ reluctance steams from overconfidence. Going through decades of education and training and then having to use a checklist to tell them the things they already know may fell demeaning. Below is an excerpt from the article that led to my assumptions:

It’s ludicrous, though, to suppose that checklists are going to do away with the need for courage, wits, and improvisation. The body is too intricate and individual for that: good medicine will not be able to dispense with expert audacity.

          Although understandable, I think this is a foolish reason not to use an empirically proven device that significantly reduces error. It is not a question that many doctors are competent experts, however, they also are human and make mistakes. Adhering to checklists does not indicate incompetence, in my opinion, it is indicative of responsibility and conciseness and is the epitome of competence. Furthermore, as an aspiring physician, I would feel so much better if I can turn to a checklist or have a nurse point out something that I forgot to do. To achieve good medicine, there is no room for pride and I believe so much more can be accomplished via a team effort without the added pressures of making simple mistakes.