Kurt Daniel, DO, FACC

For our users in Taiwan navigating the "Heart Doctor Near Me" category, it is vital to have access to comprehensive and objective information about healthcare professionals, including any potential concerns raised by patients. Today, we are focusing on Kurt Daniel, DO, FACC, a cardiologist located at 306 W Westwood Ave # 401, High Point, NC 27262, USA. While Dr. Daniel's practice is in the United States, sharing the experiences of his patients, as reported online, can offer valuable insights into potential aspects of care to consider when evaluating any cardiologist, whether local or international. It is crucial to approach this information objectively and understand that these are individual experiences.

Dr. Kurt Daniel is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) and a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology (FACC), indicating board certification and specialized training in cardiology. His office is located in High Point, North Carolina, suggesting a dedicated medical practice within that community. Information regarding the specific environment of his office, such as waiting areas or examination rooms, is not available in the provided text. Similarly, details about the full range of services offered by Dr. Daniel's practice are not explicitly listed, but as a cardiologist, he would likely provide consultations, diagnostic testing, and potentially treatment for various heart conditions.

The provided information includes two detailed patient reviews that raise significant concerns regarding Dr. Daniel's approach to patient care and decision-making. It is essential to present these reviews objectively, as they represent individual experiences and may not reflect the views of all his patients. However, they warrant careful consideration for anyone evaluating Dr. Daniel or seeking to understand potential issues that can arise in cardiac care.

The first review recounts a series of events following a routine cardiac follow-up in July 2024. A stress test in August revealed abnormalities, leading to a scheduled cardiac catheterization (cath). However, on the day of the scheduled cath, the patient, who had never met Dr. Daniel before and whose history he was reportedly unfamiliar with, was advised by Dr. Daniel not to proceed with the procedure. Dr. Daniel's reasoning was based on the patient's current exercise capacity, suggesting that he did not expect to find any issues, despite the patient's family history of heart attacks and the fact that their first heart attack had presented without prior symptoms – information that was reportedly shared with Dr. Daniel.

The patient expressed feeling uneasy about this recommendation and subsequently sought a second opinion from another cardiologist within the same practice, Dr. Chandra. Dr. Chandra, after reviewing the stress test results, advised that there were indeed abnormalities and recommended proceeding with the cath. Following Dr. Chandra's advice, a cath was scheduled with a third cardiologist in the practice, Dr. Choi, in September 2024. During this procedure, the patient was found to have an 80% blockage requiring the placement of two stents.

This detailed account raises serious concerns about Dr. Daniel's initial assessment and recommendation against the cath, especially given the subsequent finding of a significant blockage. The patient explicitly states their concern that Dr. Daniel's decision, based on one aspect of the testing (exercise capacity) and seemingly disregarding family history and atypical symptom presentation, could have led to a delay in necessary treatment. The patient further questions how many other individuals might have been dissuaded from undergoing potentially life-saving procedures based on Dr. Daniel's opinion and expresses worry about potential adverse outcomes for those individuals.

The second review is shorter but equally concerning. The patient describes Dr. Daniel as someone who "came on as a know it all" and was dismissive of the patient's desire for further investigation. The patient reports that Dr. Daniel discouraged them from seeking additional tests for irregular heartbeat, a condition the patient stated they had been diagnosed with for years. Despite the patient's history and their request for a heart monitor, Dr. Daniel reportedly raised his eyebrow and suggested further testing was unnecessary unless the patient specifically wanted it, based only on office tests.

Both of these reviews highlight potential issues with Dr. Daniel's communication style, his willingness to consider patient history and concerns, and his judgment regarding the necessity of further diagnostic procedures. The experiences reported suggest a potential tendency to dismiss patient input or rely heavily on a limited set of factors in his assessments, which in the first case, allegedly led to a delay in identifying a critical heart condition.

Given the serious nature of the concerns raised in these patient reviews, it is imperative for anyone considering Dr. Kurt Daniel as their cardiologist to be aware of these experiences. While these are individual accounts, they suggest potential patterns of behavior or judgment that may warrant further investigation or consideration. As there is no additional information provided, including any response from Dr. Daniel or the practice to these concerns, we must present this information objectively as reported by these patients.

For our local users in Taiwan seeking a "Heart Doctor Near Me," the lessons from these reviews are significant. They underscore the importance of: seeking second opinions when feeling uncertain about a diagnosis or treatment recommendation; ensuring that your cardiologist takes a comprehensive view of your medical history, including family history and atypical presentations; and feeling comfortable and heard in your interactions with your healthcare provider. A doctor who is dismissive of your concerns or unwilling to consider all relevant information may not be the best fit for your cardiac care. While Dr. Daniel practices in the USA, these principles apply universally to the selection of a cardiologist.

In conclusion, the publicly available reviews for Kurt Daniel, DO, FACC, in High Point, NC, USA, raise significant concerns regarding his approach to patient assessment and recommendations for cardiac procedures. One review details a situation where Dr. Daniel advised against a cath that subsequently revealed a critical blockage, while the other describes a dismissive attitude towards a patient's history and request for further testing. For our local users in Taiwan exploring the "Heart Doctor Near Me" category, these accounts highlight the critical importance of thorough communication, consideration of all relevant medical history, and the value of seeking second opinions when navigating cardiac care. It is recommended that individuals research any potential cardiologist thoroughly and consider multiple sources of information when making decisions about their heart health.