IDI: Divergent diagnoses between Indonesian and Malaysian doctors do not automatically indicate malpractice
The Indonesian Medical Association (IDI) has stated that differences in diagnosis between Indonesian and Malaysian doctors regarding a suspected case of appendicitis in an influencer do not necessarily mean that any doctor made a mistake, but rather that the patient’s medical records must be viewed as a whole.
“A patient’s condition can change, examinations can be carried out at different times, examination modalities also differ, and clinical interpretation is highly dependent on the overall condition of the patient at the time of examination,” said Dr Cashtry Meher, Head of Public Relations at the IDI Executive Board, in Jakarta on Wednesday.
This was said in response to an influencer who compared the differing appendicitis diagnoses given by an Indonesian doctor and a doctor in Penang, Malaysia. Media reports have suggested that there was allegedly a black campaign to promote a hospital in Penang.
According to her, the healthiest approach is not to pit Indonesian doctors against foreign doctors, but to ascertain the patient’s actual medical condition based on complete medical records.
Cashtry said that criticism of health services is an important part of improving service quality. However, care must be taken so that individual experiences are not turned into generalisations.
“This diagnosis is not determined by a single examination alone. A doctor will assess the progression of the patient’s illness based on physical examination, laboratory tests, and supporting examinations such as ultrasound, CT scan, or other tests according to applicable indications,” she said.
“If there is an allegation of an ethical or professional violation, there is of course a mechanism that can be pursued and it will be assessed based on evidence. So I emphasise again, we cannot judge based on what is reported, but we must look at the patient’s medical records,” she said.
According to her, it is important to distinguish between criticism, personal experience, alleged ethical violations, and alleged criminal acts.
She also said that doctors have the right to protection, but that does not mean doctors are immune from criticism and evaluation.
“But doctors must also not become targets of public judgement without an objective examination process. If a doctor is indeed proven to have committed a violation, there must of course be an accountability mechanism,” she said.
Cashtry said that the public does not need to take sides with either the doctor or the patient, because a good health system should be able to protect both.
“Both must be treated fairly: patients are protected, doctors are evaluated, and everything must be evidence-based. If there is indeed a problem in the service, let us examine it objectively. If something is wrong, we will fix it,” she said.