consumerist.com— In order for a hospital to participate in the Medicare program, it must develop and maintain a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to
Jan 8, 2012View in Crawl 4
This is why health care costs so much. There is over 40,000 people who are killed every year by hospitals screwing up. A very small fraction of these are actually brought to court and only a fraction of those actually cost the hospitals anything. That does not lessen the fact that hospitals do harm people more than they should and this needs to be fixed.
3,000 die in 9/11 and America goes completely bats**t but 40,000+ die every year, in our hospitals, and we do nothing about it. We are seriously stupid.
I don't know if it's 'why healthcare costs so much' but I agree it is a horrifying amount of unnecessary death and injury. It seems just about everyone you talk to has at least one story of hospital-service torment that happened to them or a family member. I hope I never find myself defenseless and in their in-capable hands until I am good and ready to die...
I have seen the same thing. When my wife went in to have a historectomy, many years ago, they had a temporary nurse who stole her drugs. She called me in tears. I really was upset that I went to work and left her alone with them. The doctor told me to take her home because she (the doctor) was sure that I would take care of her better than the hospital was.
I had major surgery on my neck, many years after that, and the nurse didn't give me my drugs on time because she was going home. The nurse that relieved here thought that I already had my drugs. So I go for 4 hours without my drugs. By the time she figured out that I hadn't got them I was through with them. I told them to release me. I went home and let my wife take care of me.
This was two different hospitals in two different states and retards tell me that this is not the issue. The hospital I was in was a huge major highly respected hospital.
I am an engineer and I know physics and statistics and they are full of s**t!
the problem is so much more complex than just the raw numbers, icwyd. A lot of the care delivered to a patient is dependent on good communication between the patient and the staff at a facility. Many times patients are treated incorrectly because they withhold information, lie about crucial social information and are uncooperative with the people trying to help them.
Drawing a parallel between 9/11 and these numbers serves no purpose in a useful discussion. It's like me bringing up the amount of people killed by bad beef in a year. No connection.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Previous studies have found that health care is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. This latest news may push it even higher. Would people be so ready to go to the doctor if they knew the overall experience kills more people than strokes?
A lot of these hospital errors are not reported for good reason. For instance, many of the accidental deaths are due to the very nature of Emergency/Trauma departments. When you have hundreds of people coming in via ambulance/helicopter that a near death with no identification or prior medical record it's extremely easy to treat the patient in a way that will lead to their death.
Is there a margin of error when it comes to reporting these errors? I'm sure there is. But saying only 14% are reported is just a way to sensationalize it.
That being said, I know a lot of sloppy care is being delivered to a lot of the aged Medicare population, especially in long term care and skilled nursing facilities, but I doubt that the reporting is being skewed for the more immediate-need type places like Level I & II trauma units.
Something to keep in mind --- trauma units are a fairly small part of "health care". Most people probably never enter a "trauma unit" and what happens there is unlikely to represent the necessary volume needed to skew the numbers to this extent.
I wouldn't consider 1/3 of the population a "small amount", which is what you said. If it was 5% I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that's not the case :)
As with all things statistical, context is important.
What is a relatively "small amount" is the overall volume of health care delivered in trauma units vs elsewhere.
The mere fact that 1/3 of the population has had a "traumatic" injury does really speak to the point when you consider that a cut requiring a few stitches is a "traumatic" injury.
can't reply to your last comment for some reason, but traumatic injuries are very specific and ranked by score. Nothing that's a cut requiring a few stitches falls into these categories.
once again, I agree that ER/Trauma is not the majority of care delivered, the only reason I brought it up was to point out the holes in the article. They can't honestly say only 14% of the errors are reported when certain errors HAVE to be omitted, even by Medicare's standards.
From your reference, trauma is "a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident."
A finger cut fits that definition. It would be considered a minor extremity trauma but still a trauma nonetheless and one which does send people to the ER.
not sure why I can't respond to your new comments (maybe the thread is too long?) but the dictionary definition of trauma has little to do with the hospital definition. When I say 1/3 of people suffer a traumatic injury it has to be Level 15 or above on the Injury Severity Score (cumulative).
"A finger cut fits that definition. It would be considered a minor extremity trauma but still a trauma nonetheless and one which does send people to the ER."
No, it doesn't. Not for a hospital trauma admission. Please stop arguing just for arguing's sake. It's frustrating.
14%. Fascinating. I find it amazing that they know the exact percentage of errors that are not reported, right down to the percentage point. How can I get such an accurate ability to know numbers that are not recorded?
How do they know it's only 14%?
I've never understood how anyone can claim only a small fraction of anything is reported...If you don't _know_ what the 100% level is, how can you _know_ that what's reported is only a fraction of that amount?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So, if I get 100,000 people in a given hospital & 14% of them have some sort of problem in a given year, that tells me how many 100% is? No, I that'd only tell me what quantity (ie an actual real number) that would be 14% of the total people that visit a hospital nation wide in a given year.
14% of 100,000 = 14,000 = 100% of problems for that 100,000. no?
What was it Rummy said about not being able to know unknown unknowns?
The whole point of percentages is that they don't change depending on the total number in the group/sample...10% of 100,000 is the same as 10% of 1,000,000; not in actual real number terms but in percentage.
(actual real number terms would be 10% of 100,000 = 1% of 1,000,000)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
While I'm not familiar with the details of this study, one way they could gather this data would be by sending teams of inspectors to a selection of hospitals to review charts, logs, paperwork, interview nurses and other staff, review patient complaints and histories etc.. If the teams find that 100 errors happened at a hospital that only reported 14 errors during the time period under review, then they can say that hospital only reported 14% of errors. If they find this is a trend that is repeated at, say, 50 different hospitals in geographically diverse regions, then there is pretty good support for the idea that all hospitals are probably only reporting 14% of errors.
Ok, fair enough. But then that still presumes the 100 errors that happened to be on record (of which only 14 were _officially_ reported) are the only ones that did in fact actually happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If there was a bank audit, and the auditors found that only 14% of the time were the bank's staff/management reporting overseas transactions would you be questioning the validity of being able to measure non-compliance with a reporting standard?
Yeah. I don't know if the studiers have a way to estimate likely unrecorded errors, or how accurate they could be if they did. I guess you just go with what data you've got and give people the benefit of the doubt that there aren't big conspiratorial coverups going on to protect chronic offenders.
I used to think the number of errors going on in hospitals was sickeningly high before this study came out. To hear that it is probably a lot higher than that... I'm just dumbfounded.
Makes me want to live as healthily as I can and spend as little time as possible in these places.
I can believe that hospitals don't give a damn. The last time I was at the hospital, the ER doctor told me I should "just go home and die" if I did not want an IV.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I saw this post in the news article as well. Although the Dr's bedside manner might have left something to be desired....why wouldn't you want an IV? Those things can save your life if you're dehydrated or need other crucial elements introduced to your body quickly.
icwydJan 9, 2012
This is why health care costs so much. There is over 40,000 people who are killed every year by hospitals screwing up. A very small fraction of these are actually brought to court and only a fraction of those actually cost the hospitals anything. That does not lessen the fact that hospitals do harm people more than they should and this needs to be fixed.
3,000 die in 9/11 and America goes completely bats**t but 40,000+ die every year, in our hospitals, and we do nothing about it. We are seriously stupid.
tomtutsJan 9, 2012
I don't know if it's 'why healthcare costs so much' but I agree it is a horrifying amount of unnecessary death and injury. It seems just about everyone you talk to has at least one story of hospital-service torment that happened to them or a family member. I hope I never find myself defenseless and in their in-capable hands until I am good and ready to die...
icwydJan 10, 2012
I have seen the same thing. When my wife went in to have a historectomy, many years ago, they had a temporary nurse who stole her drugs. She called me in tears. I really was upset that I went to work and left her alone with them. The doctor told me to take her home because she (the doctor) was sure that I would take care of her better than the hospital was.
I had major surgery on my neck, many years after that, and the nurse didn't give me my drugs on time because she was going home. The nurse that relieved here thought that I already had my drugs. So I go for 4 hours without my drugs. By the time she figured out that I hadn't got them I was through with them. I told them to release me. I went home and let my wife take care of me.
This was two different hospitals in two different states and retards tell me that this is not the issue. The hospital I was in was a huge major highly respected hospital.
I am an engineer and I know physics and statistics and they are full of s**t!
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
the problem is so much more complex than just the raw numbers, icwyd. A lot of the care delivered to a patient is dependent on good communication between the patient and the staff at a facility. Many times patients are treated incorrectly because they withhold information, lie about crucial social information and are uncooperative with the people trying to help them.
Drawing a parallel between 9/11 and these numbers serves no purpose in a useful discussion. It's like me bringing up the amount of people killed by bad beef in a year. No connection.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Jan 9, 2012
Previous studies have found that health care is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. This latest news may push it even higher. Would people be so ready to go to the doctor if they knew the overall experience kills more people than strokes?
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
A lot of these hospital errors are not reported for good reason. For instance, many of the accidental deaths are due to the very nature of Emergency/Trauma departments. When you have hundreds of people coming in via ambulance/helicopter that a near death with no identification or prior medical record it's extremely easy to treat the patient in a way that will lead to their death.
Is there a margin of error when it comes to reporting these errors? I'm sure there is. But saying only 14% are reported is just a way to sensationalize it.
That being said, I know a lot of sloppy care is being delivered to a lot of the aged Medicare population, especially in long term care and skilled nursing facilities, but I doubt that the reporting is being skewed for the more immediate-need type places like Level I & II trauma units.
jqp123Jan 9, 2012
Something to keep in mind --- trauma units are a fairly small part of "health care". Most people probably never enter a "trauma unit" and what happens there is unlikely to represent the necessary volume needed to skew the numbers to this extent.
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
One out of three people will suffer a traumatic injury in their lifetime, so I'm not so sure that's correct. Here's some good info:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/facts.html
jqp123Jan 9, 2012
In other words, by your stats, 2 out of 3 people never suffer a traumatic injury so what I said was correct.
Keep in mind that to some people, a cut finger is traumatic.
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
I wouldn't consider 1/3 of the population a "small amount", which is what you said. If it was 5% I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that's not the case :)
jqp123Jan 9, 2012
As with all things statistical, context is important.
What is a relatively "small amount" is the overall volume of health care delivered in trauma units vs elsewhere.
The mere fact that 1/3 of the population has had a "traumatic" injury does really speak to the point when you consider that a cut requiring a few stitches is a "traumatic" injury.
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
can't reply to your last comment for some reason, but traumatic injuries are very specific and ranked by score. Nothing that's a cut requiring a few stitches falls into these categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injury_Severity_Score
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_(medicine)
once again, I agree that ER/Trauma is not the majority of care delivered, the only reason I brought it up was to point out the holes in the article. They can't honestly say only 14% of the errors are reported when certain errors HAVE to be omitted, even by Medicare's standards.
jqp123Jan 9, 2012
Every trauma is not "major".
From your reference, trauma is "a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident."
A finger cut fits that definition. It would be considered a minor extremity trauma but still a trauma nonetheless and one which does send people to the ER.
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
not sure why I can't respond to your new comments (maybe the thread is too long?) but the dictionary definition of trauma has little to do with the hospital definition. When I say 1/3 of people suffer a traumatic injury it has to be Level 15 or above on the Injury Severity Score (cumulative).
"A finger cut fits that definition. It would be considered a minor extremity trauma but still a trauma nonetheless and one which does send people to the ER."
No, it doesn't. Not for a hospital trauma admission. Please stop arguing just for arguing's sake. It's frustrating.
Here's a calculator - http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/iss.html - go ahead and enter the score for "cut finger" (hint: it's way less than 15).
icwydJan 10, 2012
You can't reply because digg's code sucks!
EpathlabFeb 3, 2012
Providing Web based hospital software solutions like lab software, blood bank software
EpathlabFeb 3, 2012
Providing Web based hospital software solutions like lab software, blood bank software
drcrankJan 10, 2012
14%. Fascinating. I find it amazing that they know the exact percentage of errors that are not reported, right down to the percentage point. How can I get such an accurate ability to know numbers that are not recorded?
pdxphoenixJan 8, 2012
How do they know it's only 14%?
I've never understood how anyone can claim only a small fraction of anything is reported...If you don't _know_ what the 100% level is, how can you _know_ that what's reported is only a fraction of that amount?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomtutsJan 8, 2012
statistical analysis. If you can get a large enough, random enough sample, you can extrapolate your findings to the larger group.
pdxphoenixJan 8, 2012
So, if I get 100,000 people in a given hospital & 14% of them have some sort of problem in a given year, that tells me how many 100% is? No, I that'd only tell me what quantity (ie an actual real number) that would be 14% of the total people that visit a hospital nation wide in a given year.
14% of 100,000 = 14,000 = 100% of problems for that 100,000. no?
What was it Rummy said about not being able to know unknown unknowns?
The whole point of percentages is that they don't change depending on the total number in the group/sample...10% of 100,000 is the same as 10% of 1,000,000; not in actual real number terms but in percentage.
(actual real number terms would be 10% of 100,000 = 1% of 1,000,000)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomtutsJan 8, 2012
While I'm not familiar with the details of this study, one way they could gather this data would be by sending teams of inspectors to a selection of hospitals to review charts, logs, paperwork, interview nurses and other staff, review patient complaints and histories etc.. If the teams find that 100 errors happened at a hospital that only reported 14 errors during the time period under review, then they can say that hospital only reported 14% of errors. If they find this is a trend that is repeated at, say, 50 different hospitals in geographically diverse regions, then there is pretty good support for the idea that all hospitals are probably only reporting 14% of errors.
pdxphoenixJan 8, 2012
Ok, fair enough. But then that still presumes the 100 errors that happened to be on record (of which only 14 were _officially_ reported) are the only ones that did in fact actually happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareJan 9, 2012
If there was a bank audit, and the auditors found that only 14% of the time were the bank's staff/management reporting overseas transactions would you be questioning the validity of being able to measure non-compliance with a reporting standard?
tomtutsJan 9, 2012
Yeah. I don't know if the studiers have a way to estimate likely unrecorded errors, or how accurate they could be if they did. I guess you just go with what data you've got and give people the benefit of the doubt that there aren't big conspiratorial coverups going on to protect chronic offenders.
I used to think the number of errors going on in hospitals was sickeningly high before this study came out. To hear that it is probably a lot higher than that... I'm just dumbfounded.
Makes me want to live as healthily as I can and spend as little time as possible in these places.
datasheeJan 9, 2012
I can believe that hospitals don't give a damn. The last time I was at the hospital, the ER doctor told me I should "just go home and die" if I did not want an IV.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollJan 9, 2012
I saw this post in the news article as well. Although the Dr's bedside manner might have left something to be desired....why wouldn't you want an IV? Those things can save your life if you're dehydrated or need other crucial elements introduced to your body quickly.
Seems like a funny complaint.