Medicine teaches us to look for answers. We are trained to order the appropriate investigation, obtain the necessary imaging, consult the relevant specialist, and use the available evidence to reach a diagnosis and treatment plan. But what happens when some of those options simply aren’t available?
As a young physician practicing in Uganda, I have learned that resource limitations do not eliminate the need for good clinical decision-making. They make it even more important.
The patient still needs an answer
In a well-resourced setting, uncertainty can often be reduced with another investigation. A patient with abdominal pain may receive laboratory tests, ultrasound, CT imaging, and specialist review within hours. In many resource-limited settings, some of these investigations may be unavailable, unaffordable, delayed, or inaccessible outside major referral hospitals. That changes the clinical question.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
Instead of asking, “What is every possible investigation I can order?” I increasingly find myself asking, “What information will actually change what I do for this patient?” That distinction is important everywhere, including in wealthy health care systems where unnecessary testing can expose patients to cost, radiation, false-positive results, and cascades of further investigations. Resource limitations have therefore taught me something that applies beyond resource-limited medicine: Good clinical practice is more about intelligently using what is available.
Clinical examination matters
Technology has transformed medicine, and appropriately so. But when technology is limited, the physical examination becomes more than a ritual performed before ordering tests. It becomes a diagnostic tool.
A careful history can reveal the timing, progression, and character of symptoms. A focused examination can identify instability, focal neurological deficits, respiratory distress, peritonism, dehydration, or other findings that immediately change management.
This does not mean that clinical examination should replace appropriate investigations. Rather, it means that investigations should complement clinical reasoning rather than substitute for it. A normal-looking laboratory result should not automatically outweigh a deteriorating patient.
Knowing when to refer is part of being a good doctor
Another lesson is that knowing one’s limitations is not weakness. A patient may require surgery, intensive care, advanced imaging, specialist review, or a treatment that is unavailable at the current facility. In those situations, the safest decision may be referral. But referral itself can be complicated.
Distance, transport costs, bed availability, delays, and the patient’s financial circumstances can all influence what happens next. A referral is therefore not simply writing a note and sending the patient elsewhere. It requires stabilization where possible, clear communication, appropriate documentation, and consideration of how urgently the patient needs higher-level care. Sometimes the most important intervention a clinician can make is recognizing early that a patient needs something the current facility cannot provide.
Resourcefulness should never become recklessness
There is a danger in celebrating “resourcefulness” too much. Clinicians working with limited resources can become accustomed to improvising. Sometimes that is necessary, but there is a line between adapting to constraints and normalizing unsafe care. We should not allow a lack of resources to become an excuse for accepting preventable harm.
Resource-limited health care needs investment, not merely more resilient doctors. Doctors should not have to compensate indefinitely for inadequate staffing, insufficient equipment, medication shortages, or weak referral systems through personal sacrifice and improvisation. Clinical resilience is valuable and should not become a substitute for functioning health systems.
Patients understand more than we sometimes assume
Resource limitations also affect the relationship between doctors and patients. When a test is unavailable or a treatment option is limited, patients deserve an honest explanation.
It can be tempting to hide uncertainty behind complicated medical language. But patients often respond better when we explain what we know, what we do not know, what we are doing about it, and what warning signs should prompt them to return.
This is particularly important when financial constraints influence health care decisions. A treatment plan that is theoretically ideal but financially impossible may not be a practical treatment plan at all. Good medicine requires understanding the patient in front of us, not an imaginary patient with unlimited resources.
The lesson extends beyond Uganda
These experiences have changed how I think about clinical decision-making. The fundamental principles are remarkably universal: Recognize the sick patient, take a careful history, examine properly, prioritize what matters, use investigations thoughtfully, treat what is immediately dangerous, communicate clearly, and know when to seek help.
The difference is that resource limitations make these principles impossible to ignore. For physicians practicing in highly resourced systems, there may also be something to learn from this environment. More technology does not automatically produce better clinical reasoning. More tests do not necessarily produce better decisions.
Sometimes the most valuable clinical skill is knowing what information you actually need. And sometimes good medicine is not about having every possible resource. It is about making the best possible decision for the patient with what you have, while continuing to work toward a health care system where patients do not have to depend on scarcity-driven improvisation in the first place.
Farouk Jjingo is a physician.
