A hospital is, by its nature, the scene of constant life-or-death situations. It’s the work we nurses, doctors and other health professionals do; we chose it. The threat of harm can jazz you up or bring you down, but what it should demand, always, is the highest possible level of professionalism. Who’s at risk when that doesn’t occur?
Despite the fact that many papers have identified the problem, inappropriate blood transfusions continue in hospitals across the nation.
The act of incising human flesh is one of moment, never light, never routine no matter how familiar.
Herein lies the challenge and the best hope for doctors’ liability reform going forward: diffusion of their responsibility.
I’ve never been more worried about the safety movement than I am today. My fear is that we will look back on the years between 2000 and 2012 as the Golden Era of Patient Safety, which would be okay if we’d fixed all the problems. But we have not.
Is wireless medicine just a passing fad, or will healthcare professionals be able to find ways to leverage powerful hardware and software tools to better prevent or treat injury and illness? Time will tell. In the meantime, we should monitor its growth and hope it realizes its immense potential.
From my vantage point, the finding that there is no correlation between attitude and survival serves as a gift for our patients and for us. Allowing people to accept their condition and honestly question their fate, no matter how they handle the challenge, might be enormously helpful for some. They don’t need to fear honest discussions.
I know that tremendous effort and resources are directed toward solving the problem of organizing and coordinating patients’ health information, and I don’t doubt that within four or five years, this problem will fade.
A new battle is underway. This fight is not about credibility or legitimacy, but sustainability and identity. It’s about the “E.”
Before you write that brutal retort which I may/may not deserve, some simple disclaimers before we tackle this subject: This is not a ruthless attempt to crush your dreams and passions. This is not an op-ed on our current healthcare system. This is targeted towards individuals who are considering medical school in order to practice clinical medicine. This is being written by a physician in postgraduate training.
“Grades don’t have a lot of meaning,” says Dr. Sara B. Fazio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who leads the internal medicine clerkship at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “‘Satisfactory’ is like the kiss of death.”
As I have mentioned before, all surgeons think they are the best. Of course when we ourselves need surgery, there is a bit of a dilemma deciding who is the best qualified to carry out the procedure. So when I realized there was a strange looking skin lesion in my right inner thigh, I decided only the best would do to operate me.
Could something like this happen in medicine? It might not be exactly the same, but an interesting dilemma is looming.
Information technology in healthcare is still stuck in the 1980s. As an emergency room physician, I can attest that the technology we do have does more to slow me down than help me deliver better, more efficient care.
Doctors do stuff — tests, procedures, drug regimens, and operations. It’s what they’re trained to do, what they’re paid to do and often what they fear not doing. So it’s pretty significant that a broad array of medical specialty groups is issuing an expanding list of don’ts for physicians.