 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005Medical errors still claiming many lives
http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=833 Elizabeth Weise, "Medical errors still claiming many lives", USA Today, May 18, 2005, Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-17-medical-errors_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA As many as 98,000 Americans still die each year because of medical errors despite an unprecedented focus on patient safety over the last five years, according to a study released today. Significant improvements have been made in some hospitals since the Institute of Medicine released a landmark report in 2000 that revealed many thousands of Americans die each year because of medical mistakes. But nationwide, the pace of change is painstakingly slow, and the death rate has not changed much, according to the study in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers blame the complexity of health care systems, a lack of leadership, the reluctance of doctors to admit errors and an insurance reimbursement system that rewards errors - hospitals can bill for additional services needed when patients are injured by mistakes - but often will not pay for practices that reduce those errors. "The medical community now knows what it needs to do to deal with the problem. It just has to overcome the barriers to doing it," says study co-author Lucian Leape of Harvard's School of Public Health. The institute, a public policy organization, pushed key health care organizations to focus on patient safety, the new report says. As a result, reductions as much as 93% have been made in certain kinds of error-related illnesses and deaths. Computerized prescriptions, adding a pharmacist to medical teams and team training in the delivery of babies are among the improvements medical centers are making, the study finds. But "we have to turn the heat up on the hospitals," Leape says. For example, 5% to 8% of intensive-care patients on ventilators develop pneumonia, the study says. But by strictly following a simple protocol of bed elevation, drugs and periodic breathing breaks, those outbreaks can be reduced to almost zero. "A little hospital in DeSoto, Miss., called Baptist Memorial did it, so it doesn't take a big academic medical center," Leape says. Hospitals that eliminate infections should receive bonuses, Leape says. "If insurance companies paid 20% more for patients in (intensive-care units) where there were no infections, they'd cut costs substantially. "We really need to rethink how we pay for health care. What we do now is pay for services, but what we should do is pay for care and outcomes." > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=833 > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > is pay for services, but what we should do is pay for care and > outcomes." Drugs need to be kept in the patients' rooms in a locked box, but carried from some central point. That used to be done in little Dixie cups, all of which were identical. My wife said in nurses training they were told one-quarter of all drugs in hospitals were in error: wrong drug, wrong time or wrong patient. What has changed? >> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=833 >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > one-quarter of all drugs in hospitals were in error: wrong drug, wrong > time or wrong patient. What has changed? Most hospitals use system in which the medications prescribed for a patient are kept in a locked box for that patient in a central location. The "med-nurse" with her tray full of dixie cups is a thing of the past. --Rich, R.N. > Most hospitals use system in which the medications prescribed for a patient > are kept in a locked box for that patient in a central location. The > "med-nurse" with her tray full of dixie cups is a thing of the past. > > --Rich, R.N. I am confused. The last you told me was that you were a dairy farmer pulling on cow's teats in order to test the milk for antibiotics. When did you become an RN pumping antibiotics into humans? The quack squad members are such liars. DrC PhD >> Most hospitals use system in which the medications prescribed for a > patient [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DrC PhD Can you spell career change? --Rich >>> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=833 >>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > --Rich, R.N. So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem never suffer. > So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many medical > errors there are because the people who cause the problem never suffer. Are care providers not also patients? >> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many medical >> errors there are because the people who cause the problem never suffer. > > Are care providers not also patients? True, but are not doctors bad patients?!! Question: Do you think that the great gap in information technology will cut down errors once the medical business catches up? I am not sure. >>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many medical >>> errors there are because the people who cause the problem never suffer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Question: Do you think that the great gap in information technology > will cut down errors once the medical business catches up? I am not sure. I already has. The development of blood oxygen monitoring has dramatically reduced the incidence of intraoperative injury and death due to hypoxia. Computerized medication dispensing devices have reduced the rate of med errors, as has the fact that more and more hospitals are requiring doctors to enter orders electronically rather than in their execrable handwriting. Also, hospital pharmacies are using programs that cross reference doctors' orders, patient allergies, and drug interactions, and flag out of range dosages and frequencies. --Rich >>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem never [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > --Rich Rich states many things, but provides no proof. Just like this statement. *We'll see. The alties like to tell us that alternative medicine is on the march, and that science-based medicine and pharmacotherapy are on the decline, but there's little evidence to support that. In Europe, in fact, it's alternative medicine that's declining, with more and more altie therapies being removed from the approved list*. =============== Proved to be wrong. http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7625 http://www.whatmedicine.co.uk/articlesCompMed.htm http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7426/1250-f http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/425986.stm Doubled in the UK. http://www.intstudy.com/articles/twealtmd.htm Alternative and Complementary Medicine in Australia The alternative and complementary medicine industry in Australia is growing at a rapid rate. It is currently estimated that the market is worth over one billion dollars, with more than 20% of that market being herbal medicine and related products. In Australia, as well as overseas, this market appears to be growing at about 30% per year http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly... http://www.whccamp.hhs.gov/fr1.html http://books.nap.edu/books/0309092701/html http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/Policies_Pertaining_... http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/What_is_the_Best_and... LL/Jan >> I already has. The development of blood oxygen monitoring has >> dramatically reduced the incidence of intraoperative injury and death due [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rich states many things, but provides no proof. Do try to stay on topic, Jan. The above statement I make from experience. Surely YOU will not dispute EXPERIENCE as a valid source of knowledge?  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>> I already has. The development of blood oxygen monitoring has >>> dramatically reduced the incidence of intraoperative injury and death [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do try to stay on topic, Jan. The above statement I make from experience. To quote PeterB, you were pissing in the wind. LL/Jan >>>> I already has. The development of blood oxygen monitoring has >>>> dramatically reduced the incidence of intraoperative injury and death [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > To quote PeterB, you were pissing in the wind. Do you doubt that the above is true? Do you have any EXPERIENCE of how hospitals operate, other than as a patient? Do you have any idea what goes on in the nurses' station, at the doctors' desk, in the pharmacy? I didn't think so. --Rich >>> Question: Do you think that the great gap in information technology >>> will cut down errors once the medical business catches up? I am not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rich states many things, but provides no proof. Want peer-reviewed studies? Try these: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8 457045&dopt=citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7 859517&dopt=Citation http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/788 http://tinyurl.com/d7zjv http://tinyurl.com/alp7p http://tinyurl.com/bhv3q Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>> Question: Do you think that the great gap in information technology >>>> will cut down errors once the medical business catches up? I am not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > http://tinyurl.com/alp7p > http://tinyurl.com/bhv3q You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of reduced medicial errors LL/Jan >>>>> Question: Do you think that the great gap in information >>>>> technology will cut down errors once the medical business catches up? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of > reduced medicial errors WHO is the fool? The first two are about preventing hypoxia in patients in the operating room. While a hypoxia event is not a medical error per se, not noticing it in time to correct it certainly IS a medical error by the anesthesiologist. The first two articles are about pulse oximetry preventing that kind of error. The third study states right in its title: "Using information technology to REDUCE RATES OF MEDICATION ERRORS in hospitals". What more do you want? --Rich > You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of reduced > medicial errors > > LL/Jan You are such a buffoon. You didn't even click on the URLs, yet you go ahead and lie, saying that there is "nothing about the rate of reduced medical errors" when the TITLE of the third article is "Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals". Are you going to call "Liar! Liar!" on yourself now? Mark, MD >> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >> reduced >> medicial errors >> >> LL/Jan <snip nothing worth repeating> > Mark, MD >>> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>> reduced [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Mark, MD Jan, do you really think you can snip away the evidence that you are ignorant? Did you hide your report card from your daddy when you were in grade school? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>>> reduced [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> Mark, MD <snip the usaul insulting,> nothing you posted changes anything. Furthermore Mark MD overlooked you blunder of pissing in the wind about your stating alternative was dropping in Europe. LL/Jan http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=833 Elizabeth Weise, "Medical errors still claiming many lives", USA Today, May 18, 2005, Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-17-medical-errors_x.htm?P... As many as 98,000 Americans still die each year because of medical errors despite an unprecedented focus on patient safety over the last five years, according to a study released today. Significant improvements have been made in some hospitals since the Institute of Medicine released a landmark report in 2000 that revealed many thousands of Americans die each year because of medical mistakes. But nationwide, the pace of change is painstakingly slow, and the death rate has not changed much, according to the study in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers blame the complexity of health care systems, a lack of leadership, the reluctance of doctors to admit errors and an insurance reimbursement system that rewards errors - hospitals can bill for additional services needed when patients are injured by mistakes - but often will not pay for practices that reduce those errors. "The medical community now knows what it needs to do to deal with the problem. It just has to overcome the barriers to doing it," says study co-author Lucian Leape of Harvard's School of Public Health. The institute, a public policy organization, pushed key health care organizations to focus on patient safety, the new report says. As a result, reductions as much as 93% have been made in certain kinds of error-related illnesses and deaths. Computerized prescriptions, adding a pharmacist to medical teams and team training in the delivery of babies are among the improvements medical centers are making, the study finds. But "we have to turn the heat up on the hospitals," Leape says. For example, 5% to 8% of intensive-care patients on ventilators develop pneumonia, the study says. But by strictly following a simple protocol of bed elevation, drugs and periodic breathing breaks, those outbreaks can be reduced to almost zero. "A little hospital in DeSoto, Miss., called Baptist Memorial did it, so it doesn't take a big academic medical center," Leape says. Hospitals that eliminate infections should receive bonuses, Leape says. "If insurance companies paid 20% more for patients in (intensive-care units) where there were no infections, they'd cut costs substantially. "We really need to rethink how we pay for health care. What we do now is pay for services, but what we should do is pay for care and outcomes." > "We really need to rethink how we pay for health care. What we do now > is pay for services, but what we should do is pay for care and > outcomes." How can anyone article with paying for outcomes and not 'services'? >>>You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>>reduced [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > <snip nothing worth repeating> Ah...so predictable....Jan does not see the difference between *medical* errors and *medication* errors. > >> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of > >> reduced [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > <snip nothing worth repeating> Aaahhh...the typical blinding display of intellectual honesty. Mark, MD >> >> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >> >> reduced [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mark, MD *my other hobby (time-waster in a big way is more like it) is lurking around the Internet, annoying people who engage in the dissemination of bozo-science medical advice. My favorites are the "NutraSweet causes brain cancer" folks and those who would have us believe that milk causes diabetes. I could claim it's my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my natural pugnacious tendency.* > >> >> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of > >> >> reduced [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my > natural pugnacious tendency.* Yup! I *love* to jab my thumb in the eye of ignorant buffoons such as yourself, Jan. You are oh-so willing to berate others and drop the "L" bomb, but when you are caught being dishonest, you can do nothing but resort to pasting things you think will divert the topic. You said (essentially), "There's nothing in those links about 'X'", when (if you had even bothered to click on the provided links) you could have clearly seen that one of the articles specifically WAS, EXPLICITLY about 'X'. You are a knuckledragger. An intellectually dishonest mush-head who cannot bring herself to simply say, "Humph. I guess I was wrong." Mark, MD >> >> >> You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >> >> >> reduced [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my >> natural pugnacious tendency.* <snip the usaul insulting and lies> nothing Rich posted posted changes anything in the over all rate of medical errors. Furthermore Mark MD overlooked Rich's blunder of pissing in the wind about stating alternative was dropping in Europe. LL/Jan *YOU* never read the links. *YOU* stated that they didn't contain information about 'X'. *YOU* lied. 'fess up, babe. Not doing so makes you look like...well, it makes you look like *YOU*. Mark, MD > *YOU* never read the links. *YOU* lie. *YOU* don't know what *I* do. > *YOU* stated that they didn't contain information about 'X'. > > *YOU* lied. Yes *YOU* just did. > 'fess up, babe. Not doing so makes you look like...well, it makes you > look like *YOU*. > > Mark, MD Right back at ya! >>*YOU* never read the links. > > *YOU* lie. > > *YOU* don't know what *I* do. All intelligent beings know what *you* do. >>*YOU* stated that they didn't contain information about 'X'. >> >>*YOU* lied. > > Yes *YOU* just did. No, Mark told tha absolute truth. *YOU* lied. >>'fess up, babe. Not doing so makes you look like...well, it makes you >>look like *YOU*. >> >>Mark, MD > > Right back at ya! Nope. Cannot be done. You are a lying twit who cannot admit that you are such a thing. *YOU* lied about the links provided. *YOU* were called on it. *YOU* can't be honest enough to admit it. BTW...what did I just lie about? About you being caught in a mistake / lie? About you being a dumbass? What did I just lie about? ...or are you simply falling back on your failsafe accusation that "So-and-So is LYING!!!"? without a shred of proof? Jan...you, Sweetie, are a sad old woman. You (may have) barely graduated high school, you have a passing ability to operate a keyboard, and you have alienated your husband by spending inordinate amounts of time on Usenet, cutting-and-pasting things that confuse you, but which might impress your equally dumbastic compatriots. You have been caught (again) in a lie, and you have been caught (again) in the position of being unwilling to adimt your mistake. Are you REALLY that much of a hypocrite? Mark, MD >Jan...you, Sweetie, are a sad old woman. You (may have) barely >graduated high school, you have a passing ability to operate a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Mark, MD No, she is much more of a hypocrite: >>I guess liars have a hard time, >>keeping their lies straight. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>>>about it. >>>>>Jan ************************************************************************* *************************************************************************** >>>I believe the mercury is the cause of my problems. I hav felt better today that >>>>I have in the last 2 years, and am looking forward to getting the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>What's so hard to understand? >>>Jan **************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** >>Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the >> >pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact >he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people. Cue Jan to start a new thread attacking me. Just watch. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>>You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>>>>>reduced [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > You are a knuckledragger. An intellectually dishonest mush-head who > cannot bring herself to simply say, "Humph. I guess I was wrong." Disagree. Jan is *selective* in admitting mistakes. If one of her enablers, fellow Alties, or her parasitic symbiotic enabler is the other party, and, it is a very minor thing that does not concern Jan's firmly held beliefs, she will admit an error. However, even though you conclusively show her that one of the aforementioned critters has violated Jan's firmly held beliefs, Jan will not criticize them. Never, ever. >>You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of reduced >>medicial errors [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are you going to call "Liar! Liar!" on yourself now? No, she will not. In JanThink, there is no connection between *medical* errors and *medication* errors. >>>You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>>reduced [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, she will not. In JanThink, there is no connection between *medical* > errors and *medication* errors. "Medical errors" and "medication errors" are unrelated, but "hidden allergy" and "hidden allergen" are synonymous. Sad that. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>You are making a utter fool of yourself. Nothing about the rate of >>>>reduced [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "Medical errors" and "medication errors" are unrelated, but "hidden allergy" > and "hidden allergen" are synonymous. Sad that. Thanks for reminding me of Jan's recent foray into semantic comedy. She should quit her day job. Still trying to conceal your ignorance by snipping? It won't work. --Rich Snipping does not conceal ignorance. It only serves to highlight it. >>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem never [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > --Rich This is only what might be, not what is really happening. >>>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > This is only what might be, not what is really happening. No, even the small, rural hospital I work at now uses automated medication dispensing and computerized allergy, interaction, and dose range checking. Unfortunately, doctors here still handwrite orders, but that may be changing soon. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Unfortunately, doctors here still handwrite orders, but that may be > changing soon. Bank handwriting is a common cause of errors. Further, when nurses are told to take the orders off whatever they are scribbled on, there is even more chance for error. The system preserves custom and power, not accuracy. >>>>>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>>>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > more chance for error. The system preserves custom and power, not > accuracy. You're right. That's why handwriting of orders is being changed. Another advantage of computerized orders is consistency of naming. The doctor may order Advil or Motrin, but the printed order sheet will say "ibuprofen", and the nurse will see the same drug name every time. No confusion. Also, the electronic ordering eliminates the manual "taking off" of med orders and thus removes that "more chance for error." Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>>>> So, the central location is the problem. No one cares how many >>>>>>>> medical errors there are because the people who cause the problem [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the electronic ordering eliminates the manual "taking off" of med orders > and thus removes that "more chance for error." I hope it works out. My wife used to have to take orders off at the end of her shift, working 2 hours free overtime each and every day. If the med students and their supervisors had put it into the computer the first time, nursing hours would have been much less. But then no one cared that they came in a shift change and made all their orders, or that the hospital demanded that the day shift do it alone. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.