> 00Doc:
> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual clarity
> and candor.
> Thanks.
> MikeV
Hospital aquired infections are a big problem but this article is
often subject to exaggeration and hyperbole. I think she is a pol who
is trying to stay on the public's radar.
> From the New York Times.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> are raging through hospitals here in the United States. The major
> reason? Poor hygiene.
I guess that depends on your definition of "poor". I doubt she is
using the same one as most of us.
> In fact, hygiene is so inadequate in most
> American hospitals that one out of every 20 patients contracts an
> infection during a hospital stay.
I doubt that the 5% figure is all due to poor hygiene. Surgical
wounds, catheters, etc get infected independant of hygiene issues.
> Hospital infections kill an
> estimated 103,000 people in the United States a year, as many as
> AIDS, breast cancer and auto accidents combined.
1) This is a widely disputed statistic.
2) It fails to distinguish avoidable infections from not avoidable. If
you are acutely ill and require meds that have to be given through a
centrally placed catheter or if you need surgery to save your life and
then those things get infected through no fault of hygiene (which it
generally isn't) then that is not really the same thing.
3) It ignores the "god" side of the risk benefit equation for hospital
admissions. Clearly, no one would die of infections, medication
errors, etc, etc if no one was admitted to the hospital. However, I'm
not sure that really is the goal we should be shooting for. On
theother hand I think that many would readily support attempts to
eliminate the other things she mentions.
> And the danger is worsening as many hospital infections can no
> longer be cured with common antibiotics.
Many is a bit of an exageration. It is true that empiric therapy has
to be done with an eye toward local resistance patterns but it is
uncommon to find an infection that cannot be treated with a readily
available antibiotic.
> One of the deadliest germs
> is a staph bacteria called M.R.S.A., short for methicillin-resistant
> Staphylococcus aureus, which lives harmlessly on the skin but causes
> havoc when it enters the body. Patients who do survive M.R.S.A.
> often spend months in the hospital and endure several operations to
> cut out infected tissue.
MRSA is not more virulent than regular old SA. It is just often harder
to treat when an infection does occur. Of course, many MRSA infections
are sensitive to many older and cheap regular old antibiotics. So it
is not really fair to say they are harder to treat - it is more like
they just represent one more thing for the doc to consider. The big
reason hospitals make such a fuss over it is to try to contain the
resistance genes - not because the bug is so dangerous.
The past sentence is equally true of regular staph infections.
> In 1974, 2 percent of staph infections were
> from M.R.S.A. By 1995, that number had soared to 22 percent. Today,
> experts estimate that more than 60 percent of staph infections are
> M.R.S.A.
The 22% figure is pretty reasonable. The 60% figured should be
qualified with something to the effect of "in some places." It is on
the high end.
> Hospitals in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands once faced similar
> rates, but brought them down to below 1 percent.
Data from a study conducted in 1992 and 1993 in nursing homes found a
low MRSA rate (at the time everyone's rate was lower than it is now).
As of late, Northern European nations still have rates that are better
than the rest of Europe (and almost certainly the US) but they have
been having rising rates and outbreaks there too.
A large part of their (relative) success has been attributed to
increased surveillance (routinely checking cultures) which they do
more than other countries. Of course, they also have longer average
hospital stays. I suspect that one reason it is not done as much in
the US is that our shorter average stays mean that most patients would
only be discovered to be MRSA+ at or just before discharge. MRSA
cultures upon admission are routine where longer stays are expected
like in ICU's and rehab units.
> How? Through the
> rigorous enforcement of rules on hand washing, the meticulous
> cleaning of equipment and hospital rooms, the use of gowns and
> disposable aprons to prevent doctors and nurses from spreading germs
> on clothing and the testing of incoming patients to identify and
> isolate those carrying the germ.
All of those are common infection control procedures.
> Too few hospitals in the United States are using these precautions,
> though where they are used they are highly effective. In a pilot
> program, the veterans hospital in Pittsburgh reduced M.R.S.A. 85
> percent, and the University of Virginia Medical Center eradicated
> it. Unfortunately most hospitals have not shown the will to defeat
> infections.
These are a bit hyped as well. I have never heard of hospital wide
sustained eradication. I suspect that she is referring to short term
and limited areas.
> More than half the time, doctors and other caregivers break the most
> fundamental rule of hygiene by failing to clean their hands before
> treating a patient.
This is a problem. Most hospitals are not set up to make it convenient
and the staff does tend to be lax about it. Putting alcohol gel
dispensers in all the right places does help.
> Gloves are not the answer because pulling them
> on with dirty hands contaminates the gloves.
Not if they are applied correctly.
> Nearly three-quarters of patients' rooms are contaminated with
> M.R.S.A., which, according to experts, can be found on everything
> from cabinets to bedside tables.
This is probably not far from the truth. But it does bring into
question the utility of some of the other precautions. It is like
locking the barn door after the horse is out.
> Once patients and caregivers touch
> these surfaces, their hands become vectors for disease. Ordinary
> cleaning solutions can kill these bugs, but surfaces need to be
> drenched in disinfectant for several minutes, not just sprayed and
> wiped quickly.
Really, no easily done regimen of disinfection completely eradicates
the bugs to the point there they can't be cultured. Cleaning, even a
quick wipe, does knock the numbrs down quite a bit- often enough to
dramatically reduce transmission.
> Frequently, stethoscopes, blood-pressure monitors and other
> equipment are contaminated with live bacteria. Yet doctors and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> test patients for staph bacteria. Studies show that 70 percent to 90
> percent of patients carrying M.R.S.A. are never identified.
If they are never identified they probably also never got an
infection.
> Clothing is frequently a conveyor belt for infections. When doctors
> and nurses lean over a patient with M.R.S.A., their coats and
> uniforms pick up bacteria 65 percent of the time, and carry it to
> other patients.
I guess hospitals should go clothing optional. ;-)
> Contaminated clothing is believed to be the culprit at New York
> City's Mount Sinai Hospital, which has recently struggled to control
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> nursing assistants wear the same clothes while doing two jobs:
> emptying bed pans and delivering food trays.
Stands to reason that this shouldn't even be the same person. In most
hospitals it isn't.
Most people would be surprised and really grossed out to know just how
many infections they have had were transmitted this way.
> Hospital infections can be stopped, but most hospital administrators
> have not made prevention a top priority.
Most hospitals have full time people (usually several) designated to
try to do just that.
> The Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention are also to blame. While the C.D.C. has made
> some efforts to curb hospital infections, they have failed to ask
> hospitals to follow the rigorous precautions that are working in
> other countries and in those American hospitals where they have been
> tried.
Infection control procedures are commonly preached. I'm really not
sure what she means by "failed to ask".
> In 2003, a task force for the Society of Healthcare Epidemiologists
> of America chastised the C.D.C. for this failure, but the C.D.C. has
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> annually to the nation's health costs. This tab will increase
> rapidly as more infections become drug-resistant.
Again, all analyses like this depend heavily on the assumptions you
make. I would not be so quick to assme that the hospital admins are so
stupid and lazy. If it is that easy to make that much money they are
trying to do it.
> In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared
> that it will not support the growing demand to make hospital
> infection rates public. That's a shame because if you need to be
> hospitalized, you should be able to find out which hospitals in your
> area have the worst infection problems. This secrecy may allow some
> hospitals to save face, but it won't save lives or money.
The fear is that the numbers can be rigged, often reflect things like
the populations served rather than the practice of the hospital, and
probably would not achieve the desired end. Most likely all that would
happen is that they would start to turn away those most likely to be
infected like nursing home patients.
> Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, is the
> founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
A laudable goal. It is being persued and surely much more can be done.
However, the inflammatory nature of this article suggests to me that
there is more going on than meets the eye.

Signature
00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 07 Jun 2005 14:01 GMT
>> 00Doc:
>> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is often subject to exaggeration and hyperbole. I think she is
> a pol who is trying to stay on the public's radar.
If you look at her bio, it seems she's committed to a few
things, one of which is healthcare.
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=McCaBets
A more extensive website of hers:
http://www.hospitalinfectionrates.org/
I know nothing about her and her organization other than what
I've found above, but wanted to point people to a couple of sites
I found.
00doc - 08 Jun 2005 04:40 GMT
>>> 00Doc:
>>> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> If you look at her bio, it seems she's committed to a few
> things, one of which is healthcare.
Actually, I did look her up (and thought I vaguely remembered
something about her). She is considered an "expert on health issues"
but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what that means and who
considers her to be so. She has written several books but, again, I'm
not sure exactly what qualities allowed her to be published (notoriety
as a public figure, knowledge, writing style - flamboyancy?).
My suspicions with her is comes from my feeling that her political
career seems to show some elements of opportunism (yeah, I know - but
even more than the average state politician) and that she seems to be
currently in need of a way to stay in the public eye. I'm kind of
wondering if she isn't trying to be the Ann Coulter of healthcare
issues.
My problem with her article is that she takes what is a serious issue
that does deserve examination and detracts from it with hyperbole,
misinformation, and some just plainly poorly thought out ideas.
Sticking to the facts would have made her points just about as well
and would not have made it so easy to dismiss the article as the
agenda'd rantings that they appear to be.

Signature
00doc
Joy - 08 Jun 2005 06:18 GMT
> My problem with her article is that she takes what is a serious issue
> that does deserve examination and detracts from it with hyperbole,
> misinformation, and some just plainly poorly thought out ideas.
> Sticking to the facts would have made her points just about as well
> and would not have made it so easy to dismiss the article as the
> agenda'd rantings that they appear to be.
Maybe she had a bad experience? I know there is a flight attendant out there
who has a web page detailing the "evils" of antibiotics. I believe that is a
function of her own life history.
Joy
00doc - 08 Jun 2005 14:28 GMT
That was my first guess and part of the reason why I looked her up. If
that is the case she is not talking abou it prominently. Of course, it
could be that she has had a bad experience and is just smart enough not
to harp on it.
It is possible that this is just something she is genuinely passionate
about and that she has no ulterior motive. I still think that she does
a disservice to an important topic.

Signature
00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 08 Jun 2005 14:42 GMT
>> My problem with her article is that she takes what is a
>> serious issue
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Joy
Maybe the CDC had a bad experience, too.
I haven't seen the site detailing the eeeeeveeeils of
antibiotics, but I've seen some people here do the same.
>>>I believe that is a function of her own life history.
Or malfunction. Or perhaps they're just from Australia. Or
Germany.
Joy - 09 Jun 2005 06:22 GMT
> Or malfunction. Or perhaps they're just from Australia. Or
> Germany.
LMAO
NorthShoreCEO - 08 Jun 2005 14:39 GMT
> My suspicions with her is comes from my feeling that her
> political career seems to show some elements of opportunism
> (yeah, I know - but even more than the average state
> politician) and that she seems to be currently in need of a way
> to stay in the public eye. I'm kind of wondering if she isn't
> trying to be the Ann Coulter of healthcare issues.
That's a little like claiming Lee Iacocca is just trying to
remain in the public eye with his campaign to raise money for
diabetes research. ;-)
Did you read through the site of the second link? It seems that
their goal is to gather information and make that information
public. We may not always like what their reports reflect, but I
hardly think the whole lot of them are doing this with some
personal agenda in mind.
> My problem with her article is that she takes what is a serious
> issue that does deserve examination and detracts from it with
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> dismiss the article as the agenda'd rantings that they appear
> to be.
The problem with some people in healthcare, is that they have a
sort of knee jerk response in which they totally dismiss what's
being said, which ends the discussion and opportunity for
improvement. Not saying that about you, of course, just
sayin'.......
.
Doc, I'm not sure you carefully read the entire article before
you responded, and I'll cite one example:
She wrote:
How? Through the
> rigorous enforcement of rules on hand washing, the meticulous
> cleaning of equipment and hospital rooms, the use of gowns and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and
> isolate those carrying the germ.
To which you responded:
"All of those are common infection control procedures."
The author knows that, or she wouldn't have used the phrase,
"reinforcement of rules......", she probably would have written,
"implementation of rules..." I've done thousands of hospital
studies, and there hasn't been one where I wasn't told by
multiple people, "we have that policy in place, but not everyone
follows it".
I really HATE to tell you which group is most notorious for not
following hospital policy, so I won't. The thing is, not all
people follow all policies and procedures, and it only takes one
person NOT doing one of the things in the paragraph above to
create a problem.
She wrote:
> In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> declared
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> some
> hospitals to save face, but it won't save lives or money.
To which you responded:
"The fear is that the numbers can be rigged, often reflect things
like
the populations served rather than the practice of the hospital,
and
probably would not achieve the desired end. Most likely all that
would
happen is that they would start to turn away those most likely to
be
infected like nursing home patients."
We could all claim that numbers of any study can be rigged, but
that doesn't mean nobody publishes the results of studies.
Instead, you look to credible institutions to conduct them. If
the discussion involved restaurants and hygiene, people would
demand to see the data so they could make more informed choices.
Why should it be different for healthcare?
Maybe these will be more credible sources with better
information:
http://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/firesafety/aha_meeting.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/wenzel.htm
http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/hotnews/55h168584264313.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414382_1
00doc - 09 Jun 2005 01:48 GMT
> That's a little like claiming Lee Iacocca is just trying to
> remain in the public eye with his campaign to raise money for
> diabetes research. ;-)
Not really. Lee Iacocca may like public attention but he doesn't need
it to continue his career. If a politician falls off the radar for too
long they are dead. She lost her race for governor and has been out of
office. This means she has to find a way to stay in awareness of at
least some New Yorkers. Lee will continue selling cars even if you
don;t hear much about him in a while. Now, if you don't hear much
about his cars - that would be bad.
> Did you read through the site of the second link? It seems that
> their goal is to gather information and make that information
> public. We may not always like what their reports reflect, but I
> hardly think the whole lot of them are doing this with some
> personal agenda in mind.
I don't think so either.
It is the tone of her article that makes me wonder. Like I said there
is a enough to talk about on this topic without going off the deep
end.
> The problem with some people in healthcare, is that they have a
> sort of knee jerk response in which they totally dismiss what's
> being said, which ends the discussion and opportunity for
> improvement. Not saying that about you, of course, just
> sayin'.......
I'm not trying to dismiss what she said. I think I've taken pains to
point out that the message is important. I've been critical of her for
taking an unneccessarily unlevel-headed approach. I'm sure she is
capable of calm rational discussion which makes me suspect that the
tone is calculated.
> Doc, I'm not sure you carefully read the entire article before
> you responded, and I'll cite one example:
I really did.
> She wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> "reinforcement of rules......", she probably would have written,
> "implementation of rules..."
It seemd to me she was presenting this as something new.
> I've done thousands of hospital
> studies, and there hasn't been one where I wasn't told by
> multiple people, "we have that policy in place, but not everyone
> follows it".
In my experience part (-part-) of the low compliance is because they
don't do a good job of making the rules easy to follow. Things like
saying gowns should be worn in certain situations but not putting
signs up or having the gowns available at the door. I don't know how
many hospitals you have toured but have you ever noticed the
conspicuous lack of sinks? You are supposed to wash between patients
but usually the only sinks are in one of the supply rooms and the
patient's bathroom - which often is in use by a roommate at the time
of the visit. Then there is the farce of telling me that I should wash
my hands before going from one bed to the other (and possibly wear a
gown) but then they sit on the same toilette?
Mind you, I am not saying that a big part of the problem isn't just
plain old compliance. It is. It is just that I have been on the end of
trying to comply and having it made harder than it should be so I know
that some (-some-) of those people you have spoken to are living in
glass houses.
That is why the alcohol gels are such a breakthrough. Hospitals are
willing to place the dispensers in the halls and room entrances where
they should have been placing the sinks for years.
> I really HATE to tell you which group is most notorious for not
> following hospital policy, so I won't.
Don't have to - I already know.
And for the record - I doubt you really hate bringing it up. So wipe
that smile off your face young lady. (Or I'll cut you off of videos).
> The thing is, not all
> people follow all policies and procedures, and it only takes one
> person NOT doing one of the things in the paragraph above to
> create a problem.
Well yeah - and just one nursing home patient etc etc. That is why I
find her claims of elimination of MRSA to be dubious. They surely can
be much better than they are - but eliminated from whole hospitals for
prolonged periods? - Those days are gone. We are seeing MRSA in the
community now where no hospital infection control policy is likely to
reach.
> She wrote:
>> In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> demand to see the data so they could make more informed choices.
> Why should it be different for healthcare?
This really in no way suggests I didn't read what she said. It is just
that I don't think she has thought out the position on that one very
well.
The problem is finding measures that accurately reflect what you claim
to be measuring. The first problem is that raw data is misleading. The
rates will be affected by things like the referal population and the
surveilance that is done. Possible adverse effects of the reporting
include rigging the data collection to be favorable (which in the end
increases the infection rate by not providing real data) and trying to
change the patient population to a more favorable one. This may be
done by changing the procedures offered and changing admission and
discharge criterion. So now grandma has to go to the next town over to
get her surgery but at least the hospital has a nice low infection
rate. Often raw outcomes data is unfair to hospitals that handle the
toughest cases and if the hospitals start losing money over it they
stop taking those cases.
The other problem is that hospitals have gotten very good at figuring
out how they are being judged and playing to the test. What you end up
with is increased markers for quality without real quality
improvement. It is kind of like giving the questions to the students
before the test and then lauding the improved test scores as an
improvement in their education. Ever wonder how cardiac units get 100%
compliance with aspirin prescriptions on discharge? They pre-print the
instruction on the discharge sheet and leave it to the doc to cross it
out if it is not appropriate. Now - do you really think that means
they managed the heart attack any better for the three days prior to
discharge? They say it does.
I am all in favor of reporting if it can be done right. But your
suggestion of independant studies is not what she is proposing. If it
is done wrong it ends up making things worse. So far most of the the
efforts at quality improvement through tracking markers that I have
seen have been failures precisely because they take the easy route
that she seems to be proposing. Bad data is not necessarily better
than no data.
As for comparing healthcare to restaurants: For one thing that data
isn't readily available for them either so I am not the one claiming
anything should be different. For another - it really is apples an
oranges since a restaurant owner has a lot more control over his
kitchen than a hospital will ever have over its wards.
> Maybe these will be more credible sources with better
> information:
I'm sure you will note that they say basically what she is saying
without all the hyperbole. For me it makes it a much more credible
argument.

Signature
00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 09 Jun 2005 03:54 GMT
> In my experience part (-part-) of the low compliance is because
> they don't do a good job of making the rules easy to follow.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> entrances where they should have been placing the sinks for
> years.
I can honestly say I've never noticed this until you just
mentioned it - but I've never seen a sink in a hospital other
than those in the patients bathrooms.
>> I really HATE to tell you which group is most notorious for
>> not
>> following hospital policy, so I won't.
>
> Don't have to - I already know.
I knew you'd know.
> And for the record - I doubt you really hate bringing it up. So
> wipe that smile off your face young lady. (Or I'll cut you off
> of videos).
Teehee. Oh geeze, don't cut me off of videos. In fact, I'm
due....it's been at least a week. A really BAD week. So please
send me something. STAT!!! (lol)
> The other problem is that hospitals have gotten very good at
> figuring out how they are being judged and playing to the test.
> What you end up with is increased markers for quality without
> real quality improvement.
True. Look how everyone has those JHACO visits down to a pat, no
matter how disruptive they can be.
> I am all in favor of reporting if it can be done right. But
> your suggestion of independant studies is not what she is
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> more control over his kitchen than a hospital will ever have
> over its wards.
Still - it involves choices the public makes which could impact
their health.
>> Maybe these will be more credible sources with better
>> information:
>
> I'm sure you will note that they say basically what she is
> saying without all the hyperbole. For me it makes it a much
> more credible argument.
I think you're more open to this kind of thing if it's presented
as hard data. It's the gloating you don't like. ;-)
00doc - 10 Jun 2005 03:36 GMT
> I think you're more open to this kind of thing if it's presented
> as hard data. It's the gloating you don't like. ;-)
The data is compelling enough. She doesn't need to embellish.
The real problem is that NOBODY is really serious about it. The docs
certainly don't take it seriously enough (as you mention). But then
again, the nurses (who tend to be a protocol driven bunch) have so
much more patient contact that even with better compliance rates I am
not sure they are not spreading most of the disease. I'm not sure the
unit aides are all that great about it either and suspect that they
often are not included inthe studies.
But the facility administrators from what I have seen only make token
gestures. I used to go to one nursing home where they had "infection
control" policies and officers assigned. The problem is that they
really didn't do any proactive monitoring. If the positive culture was
thrown in their face (usually drawn for some other reason or by
someone else) they would react by putting the patient on contact
isolation and repeating the cultures until they came back negative.
The fun times would be when every once in a while they would ask me if
I thought the person could be taken off of isolation. My answer would
usually not amuse them. I would tell them that if they wanted to truly
reduce the MRSA they should culture the whole unit and cohort the
patients into a clean side and a dirty side and assign seperate staff
that do not mix. Otherwise, the whole thing is a sham with little hope
of working so if they are not going to do that they may as well take
my patient off isolation because the whole thing is a joke doomed to
failure anyway. - They would usually just walk away shaking their
heads and not ask me again for a while.
So I have to be a little scheptical when you tell me about
adminsitrators grousing about the docs and staff because frm what i
have seen they probably don't have their house in order either.

Signature
00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 10 Jun 2005 19:01 GMT
> So I have to be a little scheptical when you tell me about
> adminsitrators grousing about the docs and staff because frm
> what i have seen they probably don't have their house in order
> either.
It's not them doing the grousing. It's heads of various hospital
departments, nurses and the docs themselves. And it's not really
grousing, just commenting. Okay, sometimes it's grousing.
MikeV - 09 Jun 2005 17:47 GMT
>> 00Doc:
>> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual clarity
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> are raging through hospitals here in the United States. The major
>> reason? Poor hygiene.
00doc:
I can't help wondering if there is not something going on here which
has parallels to the auto industry after WW2.
A guy (an American) you have probably heard of, called Dr Edwards
Deming approached the Big Three with a new philosophical approach
to Quality Management. When over several years this all went over
like lead baloon, he took it to Japan where he became practically
national patron saint.
An American taught the Nipponese quality management!
US industry is still suffering competitively from Japanese and now
Asian quality. They used to be masters of the cheap copy!
Another American, Philip B Crosby, extended Deming's principles to
the notion that "Quality is Free" (or even profitable!)
the idea that poor quality in goods OR SERVICES costs more in
profits than the cost of instilling the attitudes and procedures
that overcome poor quality and its consequences. A top down
leadership philosophy and a self corrective system at all levels are
essential.
Is there any hope, in an industry as complex as the US healthcare
system? Don't ask General Motors for the answer! Inertia is a
powerful influence in both gasoline consumption and healthcare.
Changing the status quo appears to be somehow easier among the
Asians.
I believe I read recently that many Americans are already going to
Asia for procedures that are at least equal to US but at less than
half the cost.
On a positive note: If McAughey is only half right perhaps this
could eventually lead to the rebirth of the airlines? :-)
Don't get me wrong. There are like yourself, plenty of plenty of
good caring doctors and other health professionals in the US. I hope
the environment for them to remain in the majority will continue to
exist.
I grew up under socialized medicine, so I am sure that's not the
answer. Britain's hospitals are said to be worse than here in terms
of HAI. I spent a good chunk of my working life in the 60's
designing electronics under a quality & reliability assurance
systems managed by NASA and the military.
I think there may be some clues there for hospital management, but
even they have lapsed in quality somewhat in recent years.
Another suggestion: allocate 20% of the US healthcare budget to drug
free prevention, and keep more of us out of the hospitals.
MikeV
Thoughtful and optimistic responses appreciated.
00doc - 10 Jun 2005 03:47 GMT
> Another American, Philip B Crosby, extended Deming's principles to
> the notion that "Quality is Free" (or even profitable!)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Changing the status quo appears to be somehow easier among the
> Asians.
That would be the argument for reporting (which I don't really
oppose). The hospitals have shown that they can change the behaviour
of their staff if they know someone is watching. Right now no one is
and so they don't care. The staff picks up on the fact that the
management doesn't care and so in turn they don't care. Sure, everyone
would kind of like to see these infection go away on some level but it
is not the level of commitment that is needed to really make it
happen.
The problem is that while reporting is probably the key just plain
spitting out raw lab results is not likely to help and based on my
experience is just likely to result in counter-productive games. What
really needs to happen is that we need to fund studies on what
measures work and what markers are predictive and then send people in
to obtain the data - probably unannounced. It is quicker and easier
just to ask the microbiology lab to submit their culture results so
that is what most pols who just want to make a quick fix that won;t
cost much money or put out the hospitals too much suggest. It is the
same old game of trying to make it look like you are doing something
rather than actually doing it (no child left behind comes to mind).
> I grew up under socialized medicine, so I am sure that's not the
> answer.
No, I don't think it really matters what the structure of the
healthcare financing is.
> Another suggestion: allocate 20% of the US healthcare budget to drug
> free prevention, and keep more of us out of the hospitals.
Now you are talking dangerous heresy.

Signature
00doc
MikeV - 10 Jun 2005 12:30 GMT
> Now you are talking dangerous heresy.
How long before the 'White Berets' come for me, from the Pharma
Squad?
If you ... ...dont ... ...hear ... from ... me
..you'l . . . . .
> 00Doc:
> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual clarity
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> estimated 103,000 people in the United States a year, as many as
> AIDS, breast cancer and auto accidents combined.
Thanks for interesting article. Regardless of who author is
and what are the motivations, I think it is a lot more useful
to discuss the subject itself rather than the author.
I am shocked to learn that hospitals are doing such a pure
job on this. I was assuming that they are nearly perfect
in handling infection problem as it have been around long
enough to develop effective procedures. Apparently not.
At least we can take personal precautions immediately.
As for general solution - there is indeed a need for
political action (at least for requiring hospitals
to publish infection rates), and unfortunately there is no other
way to cause a political action but very agreesive and
vigorous yelling and demonstrating. Arguments themself
are rarely ever listened to by politicians.
Regards,
Evgenij
MikeV - 11 Jun 2005 04:59 GMT
>> 00Doc:
>> Is this real in your view? Please comment with your usual clarity
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> Regards,
> Evgenij
Evgenij:
I agree that the problem has been around for a long time.
I first became personally aware of penicillin resistant staph.
infection in a hospital ward in England in 1962. A boy there with
osteomyelitis complicated by staph was not expected to live beyond
13 yrs. I read that a recent study of infection control procedures
in British hospitals revealed only about 50% compliance by staff.
43+ years of antibiotic abuse, poor infection control habits, and
now resistant strains showing up outside of hospitals suggest that
there is not going to be an overnight solution. As has been pointed
out before, prevention is less popular than developing a new
profitable drug in the present political climate.
Back during the cold war, Eisenhower warned Americans about the
dangers of the Military Industrial Complex to democracy in our
country. I have come to suspect that the western fascination with "a
pill for every ill" and an "ill for every pill" in an environment of
AIDS, TB, west Nile, etc is leading us to a petro-pharma-political
complex free of unprofitable regulation. No room for infection
control there!
What would you call that form of government? A petro-pharmocracy?
You vote with your dollars, if you have job.
Sorry about my fit of pessimism. Hope your noisy demonstration
works, Evgenij.
Anybody got a prozac?
MikeV