I have been worried lately that I may have adopted radical views on quality and safety in hospitals, that I may be out of the mainstream of American life when I suggest that we should jointly determine to eliminate certain types of infections or engage in protocols to enhance patient safety. I was also worried that my insistence on the importance of transparency with regard to these issues was just too outlandish for people to absorb and accept.
Imagine my relief then, to read this editorial in USA Today. Hardly a radical journal, the editors write:
Too many Americans go into hospitals for treatment and end up getting sicker....
A greater sense of urgency is needed....
Why are infections so widespread? In part, of course, because hospitals are full of sick people and germs. But medical professionals, hospital administrators and government regulators are failing to demand adherence to actions they already know will protect patients....
Secrecy allows the problem to fester. Although 23 states require hospitals to report infections to one of four unlinked federal databases, reporting is so scattershot that there's no way to determine whether the problem has been getting better or worse.
On the comments under the post below, some of the world's experts on quality and safety offer their perspectives on this issue. What is it about the medical community that makes it so hard for these views to be accepted? A close colleague writes to me saying, "I imagine the fear of transparency clouds all."
Look at the numbers in the editorial: Tens of thousands of deaths from often preventable infections. We -- and I mean the academic medical centers in general -- rely too much on our reputations. It is beyond time to hold ourselves to a higher standard. As I have said before, if we fail to do so, it will be done for us and to us by legislative and regulatory action, and such action is bound to be less accurate and helpful than the kind of self-reporting I have advocated here.
Imagine my relief then, to read this editorial in USA Today. Hardly a radical journal, the editors write:
Too many Americans go into hospitals for treatment and end up getting sicker....
A greater sense of urgency is needed....
Why are infections so widespread? In part, of course, because hospitals are full of sick people and germs. But medical professionals, hospital administrators and government regulators are failing to demand adherence to actions they already know will protect patients....
Secrecy allows the problem to fester. Although 23 states require hospitals to report infections to one of four unlinked federal databases, reporting is so scattershot that there's no way to determine whether the problem has been getting better or worse.
On the comments under the post below, some of the world's experts on quality and safety offer their perspectives on this issue. What is it about the medical community that makes it so hard for these views to be accepted? A close colleague writes to me saying, "I imagine the fear of transparency clouds all."
Look at the numbers in the editorial: Tens of thousands of deaths from often preventable infections. We -- and I mean the academic medical centers in general -- rely too much on our reputations. It is beyond time to hold ourselves to a higher standard. As I have said before, if we fail to do so, it will be done for us and to us by legislative and regulatory action, and such action is bound to be less accurate and helpful than the kind of self-reporting I have advocated here.
No comments:
Post a Comment