This takes a look at clinical complexity using a real patient scenario drawing analogy with populist physics experiments.
The disjointed nature of modern medical care—especially when global advisory teams, local attending physicians, and frontline night shifts don't fully align— can potentially map onto the strange rules of quantum mechanics.
A specific Russell's viper human bite case was published recently here: https://
Here is how we can map the Quantum Double-Slit Experiment onto the workflow around the above recently published case:
1. The Superposition of Patient Trajectories (The Wave Function)
In quantum physics, a particle exists in a superposition—a cloud of multiple potential pathways and states at the same time—until it is actively measured.
In this clinical scenario, the patient’s true trajectory was a cloud of possibilities. Because communication was fragmented, the patient actually existed in two parallel clinical realities (the two slits) simultaneously:
Slit A (The SR Reality): The 20WBCT (whole blood clotting test) is abnormal. The protocol dictates an ASV (anti-snake venom) rechallenge. The patient is high-risk and needs transfer or aggressive treatment.
Slit B (The AP / PaJR Reality): The global consensus has decided against a rechallenge due to the earlier severe anaphylaxis (life-threatening allergic reaction). The plan is conservative observation.
2. The Uncoordinated "Observers" (The Detectors)
In the double-slit experiment, placing a detector at the slits changes the behavior of the particles, forcing them to choose a path. However, in this case, the hospital had two different detectors operating at different times, completely oblivious to one another.
Team SR looked at the patient at night through the lens of local habit and the abnormal clotting test. They "measured" a patient who needed ASV, and by advising a rechallenge, they actively tried to push the patient down Path A.
Team AP looked at the patient during morning rounds through the lens of the PaJR global discussion. They "measured" a patient who needed stable observation, trying to push the patient down Path B.
Both teams suffered from an illusion of control. They believed their specific notes, rounds, and advice were the definitive "measurement" that was collapsing the patient's trajectory into a safe recovery.
3. The Collapse of the Wave Function (The Final Screen)
In the quantum experiment, the particle eventually hits the back screen, leaving a single, undeniable point of data.
In medicine, we like to think the physician’s intervention dictates where that particle lands. But this transcript beautifully proves otherwise. The clinicians were so busy creating quantum interference with their conflicting advice that they forgot the ultimate force deciding the trajectory: the patient's own autonomy.
The patient and their relatives, faced with conflicting "waves" of medical advice (one team pushing for a scary ASV rechallenge, another telling them to stay put), made their own independent choice. They chose LAMA (Leaving Against Medical Advice).
The Paradoxical Conclusion
When the wave function finally collapsed, where did the particle land?
Team SR believed the patient landed in Path A (went to an outside hospital for observation/treatment).
Team AP believed the patient was safely bound to their protocol.
In reality, the patient overrode both clinical "universes," went straight home, and turned out completely fine.
The analogy teaches us that diagnostic uncertainty and fractured communication turn a hospital stay into a quantum system.
Clinicians often argue over which intervention they are successfully implementing, when in reality, the final trajectory is often completely collapsed by the chaotic, unmeasured variable of the patient's own real-world choices.
Going by the transcripts below can you draw an analogy of the quantum slit experiment with clinical decision making where diagnostic uncertainty can be likened to different individuals looking at certain parts of an individual patient's
events trajectory and trying to influence
the trajectory with interventions that they believe they are implementing when in reality what is getting implemented is
very different and completely dependent
eventual on what the patient chooses?
Going by the transcripts below can you draw an analogy of the quantum slit experiment with clinical decision making where diagnostic uncertainty can be likened to different individuals looking at certain parts of an individual patient's events trajectory and trying to influence the trajectory with interventions that they believe they are implementing when in reality what is getting implemented is very different and completely dependent eventual on what the patient chooses
Broad overview and conclusion: There were actually two treating teams, one driven by the senior resident on night duty and one junior resident who had first evaluated and treated the patient with ASV as well as for the anaphylaxis along with regular counseling of the relatives oblivious to the PaJR global discussions and the other team driven by the assistant professor largely meeting the patient and his her relatives mostly in the morning rounds along with different junior residents.
Team SR uninfluenced by the global PaJR team discussion appears to have advised the patient's relatives to re-start ASV because of which the patient relatives left against medical advice aka LAMA from the hospital while team AP influenced by the global PaJR team adviced the patient's relatives to stay for observation without going for a re challenge with ASV. The patient relatives gave the impression to the senior resident that they were going to another hospital while the junior resident made a local call and found that they actually went home and were fine as did our global PaJR coordinator who had to make an ISD call from Amsterdam.
Transcripts of conversations between the treating senior resident SR and PaJR global team interviewer:
[06/07, 17:44]hu2: Were you involved in the recent Russel viper case from start to finish?
[06/07, 17:51]hu7: Yes, I have seen the patient until the attendants have taken the patient to an outside hospital
[06/07, 17:52]hu2: So are there any particular turning points in this patient that you can recall?
As far as I know the patient went home LAMA but not to another hospital
[06/07, 18:03]hu7: No, I have followed up the case. The patient went to an outside hospital where they were kept under observation for 24hrs and then the was discharged and she is fine now. I will update all the details regarding the turning points in the patient sir.
[06/07, 18:07]hu2: Thanks
Will be looking forward to your thoughts about those turning points.
Why do you think they decided to go to another hospital?
[06/07, 18:12]hu7: , the important turning points in the patient were:
1. Initial 20WBCT was normal, but since it was a confirmed Russell’s viper bite, serial monitoring was continued as delayed VICC is well recognized.
2. After 45mins infusion with 5 vials of ASV, the patient developed a severe early ASV reaction with chills, agitation, altered sensorium, SpO₂ falling to around 60% on RA and later generalized urticarial rash—consistent with severe anaphylaxis.
3. IM adrenaline, oxygen, steroids and antihistamines stabilized the patient.
4. Despite improvement in oxygenation and respiratory symptoms, BP remained 70/40, and the rash was present indicating ?persistent distributive shock/protracted anaphylaxis with capillary leak, requiring fluid resuscitation and noradrenaline support.
5. Repeat 20WBCT later became abnormal, despite the initial normal test.
[06/07, 18:16]hu7: The patient was adviced ASV again after an abnormal 20WBCT, for which the attendants were not ready.
[06/07, 19:18]hu2: Thanks.
When was the second ASV rechallenge adviced?
Was that the reason for their leaving the hospital?
[06/07, 19:20]hu2:
4: How long did the BP remain low and how long did the rash persist?
5. When did the repeat 20WBCT come abnormal for the first time and how long did it persist
[06/07, 19:21]hu2: Is the advice for second ASV challenge documented in the file?
[06/07, 22:36]hu7: On 26th of june and as far as i know that was reason patient went to another hospital.
[06/07, 22:40]hu7: The BP gradually stabilised after the noradrenaline infusion, we slowly tapered and stopped the infusion by morning, the rash also slowly decreased by morning (all this happened from 11 pm on 23rd june to 9:00am on 24th june)
[06/07, 22:43]hu7: Regarding the abnormal 20WBCT and documentation of the second ASV in the patient’s file, I am not clearly sure as I was not the staff on duty on 26th june. I will find out regarding this and update. Thankyou.
[07/07, 07:57]hu2: Thanks
These were very useful inputs
Transcripts of conversations between the treating asstt professor AP and PaJR global team interviewer:
[06/07, 16:31]hu2: Was the decision to not restart ASV in this patient yours alone or other SR, APs also agreed and documented the same in the file?
[06/07, 17:25]hu8: We all followed your decision
[06/07, 17:32]hu2: Alright so it was my decision
But just curious to know if you would have restarted ASV after the anaphylaxis episode if i wasn't there.
I guess we didn't mention it explicitly in the file that we were not restarting the ASV?
[06/07, 17:52]hu8: We didn't start after that
[06/07, 17:54]hu2: Yes
This is a theoretical query and probably of less value:
Just curious to know if you would have restarted the ASV if I hadn't influenced you
[06/07, 19:57]hu8: Yes
[06/07, 19:58]hu8: At (...the govt medical college where he did his senior residency) if the patient had even minor bleeding manifestations we would have started ASV again after giving inj hydrocot and avil
[06/07, 20:18]hu2: Alright but what about this patient when there's no bleeding?
[06/07, 20:20]hu8: If there are no clinical manifestations we didnt start asv
[06/07, 20:27]hu2: Thanks
More here:
https://medicinedepartment.
And here: https://medicinedepartment.
No comments:
Post a Comment