Three surgeons named with high death rates

[Big Fat Frosty]

lol
ive only voted labour twice in 38 years.....
ive voted green far more

Well bully for you!
Go have a spliff to celebrate
As you like your Greens

definetly voting red this time
3rd times the charm

[LordRaven]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

his performance has improved
dramtically so there was obviously room for improvement
and he was spurred to find it
surely thats a good thing

How? Simply put he refuses on those who he knows might not make it. So now some people are just left to die because he wont risk ruining his "league position".

And you think that is good for patients?

It beggars belief tbh that you and others are so naive about this idiotic policy

[LordRaven]

lol
ive only voted labour twice in 38 years.....
ive voted green far more

Well bully for you!
Go have a spliff to celebrate
As you like your Greens

definetly voting red this time
3rd times the charm

So you think Ed Sillyplank is fit to be PM when 4 out of 10 labour voters think he is a clown? Good call!

[Big Fat Frosty]

maggie was the milk snatcher but she went on to be your one and only....
ed is left of blair
right of kinnock
he's ballpark
better than his brother
the blair clone

[Big Fat Frosty]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

his performance has improved
dramtically so there was obviously room for improvement
and he was spurred to find it
surely thats a good thing

How? Simply put he refuses on those who he knows might not make it. So now some people are just left to die because he wont risk ruining his "league position".

And you think that is good for patients?

It beggars belief tbh that you and others are so naive about this idiotic policy

yes certainly this guys patients
he is now killing far less of them

[LordRaven]

I despair

[Dimples]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

his performance has improved
dramtically so there was obviously room for improvement
and he was spurred to find it
surely thats a good thing

It's not a spelling test or a maths paper, you know.

It's not as if there is "a bad way" to perform a triple coronary artery bypass graft... as opposed to "a good way". There are a number of critical steps involved in the procedure to ensure a satisfactory outcome, so unless he was routinely omitting a critical part of the surgery previously, it's difficult to know what he could have started to do differently which would make a noticeable improvement in terms of mortality.

The fact is, Frosty, that no heart surgeon can ever be sure that when they put knife to skin, the patient isn't going to arrest and die on the table in front of them during the procedure.... - or even 2 weeks later after he/she has gone home - and that's without them having done a single thing wrong, surgically. That's how precarious cardiac surgery is... It is intensive, nerve wracking, intricately complex surgery but if you and others like you are happy to have surgeons classified as if they were amateur football clubs, go ahead and knock yourself out.

It makes you look a bit foolish though if you swallow all the guff that government appointed agencies churn out. Nobody is suggesting that surgeons - in fact all doctors - should not constantly review their practice. The fact is that they have been doing it for years and years. The issue is that identifying and naming individual practitioners does not actually benefit anyone.

[Dimples]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

his performance has improved
dramtically so there was obviously room for improvement
and he was spurred to find it
surely thats a good thing

How? Simply put he refuses on those who he knows might not make it. So now some people are just left to die because he wont risk ruining his "league position".

And you think that is good for patients?

It beggars belief tbh that you and others are so naive about this idiotic policy

yes certainly this guys patients
he is now killing far less of them

Where is there any evidence that he "killed" any of them?

[Big Fat Frosty]

Where is there any evidence that he "killed" any of them?

ok sorry
your right..... i was in raven mode
far less of them are dying

[LordRaven]

maggie was the milk snatcher but she went on to be your one and only....
ed is left of blair
right of kinnock
he's ballpark
better than his brother
the blair clone

Labour’s problem isn’t Ed Miliband, it’s Labour
Voters dislike not just the Labour leader, but a party suffering from a lack of original thinking and political ferment

The question is obvious, simple and urgent. Would Labour do better under a different leader? Unfortunately the answer is both complex and uncertain.

Let’s start with a truth that Ed Miliband himself cannot deny. His ratings are terrible. According to YouGov’s latest poll for the Sunday Times, just 18% of the public think he is up to the job of prime minister; 64% do not. But that’s not the worst of it. Among people who voted Labour in 2010, only 34% now think he is up to the job – a marked fall from his 51% rating just one month ago. 42% of these voters say he is not up to the job, a big jump from 28% in early October.

Other YouGov polls tell a similar story and help to explain why Labour’s lead, 14% at its mid-term peak two years ago, has now evaporated. Compared with November 2012, fewer people see Labour’s leader as strong, honest and decisive. He used to score reasonably well as someone who is “in touch with ordinary people”. No longer.

So: has the time come for Miliband to go? Were Labour miles behind the Conservatives and heading for inevitable defeat, the answer would be clear. There is nothing to lose; let’s try someone else. But there are two big reasons why things aren’t that simple.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... like-party

[LordRaven]

Where is there any evidence that he "killed" any of them?

ok sorry
your right..... i was in raven mode
far less of them are dying

Poppycock! Being in my mode you'd be declaring this a recipe for disaster but you clearly can't work out why!

[Big Fat Frosty]

maggie was the milk snatcher but she went on to be your one and only....
ed is left of blair
right of kinnock
he's ballpark
better than his brother
the blair clone

Labour’s problem isn’t Ed Miliband, it’s Labour
Voters dislike not just the Labour leader, but a party suffering from a lack of original thinking and political ferment

The question is obvious, simple and urgent. Would Labour do better under a different leader? Unfortunately the answer is both complex and uncertain.

Let’s start with a truth that Ed Miliband himself cannot deny. His ratings are terrible. According to YouGov’s latest poll for the Sunday Times, just 18% of the public think he is up to the job of prime minister; 64% do not. But that’s not the worst of it. Among people who voted Labour in 2010, only 34% now think he is up to the job – a marked fall from his 51% rating just one month ago. 42% of these voters say he is not up to the job, a big jump from 28% in early October.

Other YouGov polls tell a similar story and help to explain why Labour’s lead, 14% at its mid-term peak two years ago, has now evaporated. Compared with November 2012, fewer people see Labour’s leader as strong, honest and decisive. He used to score reasonably well as someone who is “in touch with ordinary people”. No longer.

So: has the time come for Miliband to go? Were Labour miles behind the Conservatives and heading for inevitable defeat, the answer would be clear. There is nothing to lose; let’s try someone else. But there are two big reasons why things aren’t that simple.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... like-party

crying over spilt milk
as they say in yorkshire

[LordRaven]

maggie was the milk snatcher but she went on to be your one and only....
ed is left of blair
right of kinnock
he's ballpark
better than his brother
the blair clone

Labour’s problem isn’t Ed Miliband, it’s Labour
Voters dislike not just the Labour leader, but a party suffering from a lack of original thinking and political ferment

The question is obvious, simple and urgent. Would Labour do better under a different leader? Unfortunately the answer is both complex and uncertain.

Let’s start with a truth that Ed Miliband himself cannot deny. His ratings are terrible. According to YouGov’s latest poll for the Sunday Times, just 18% of the public think he is up to the job of prime minister; 64% do not. But that’s not the worst of it. Among people who voted Labour in 2010, only 34% now think he is up to the job – a marked fall from his 51% rating just one month ago. 42% of these voters say he is not up to the job, a big jump from 28% in early October.

Other YouGov polls tell a similar story and help to explain why Labour’s lead, 14% at its mid-term peak two years ago, has now evaporated. Compared with November 2012, fewer people see Labour’s leader as strong, honest and decisive. He used to score reasonably well as someone who is “in touch with ordinary people”. No longer.

So: has the time come for Miliband to go? Were Labour miles behind the Conservatives and heading for inevitable defeat, the answer would be clear. There is nothing to lose; let’s try someone else. But there are two big reasons why things aren’t that simple.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... like-party

crying over spilt milk
as they say in yorkshire

Crying? Me?? No way! This is fabulous news, keep the incompetent bastard in the leadership role

[Big Fat Frosty]

we shall see
farage is the hot air you was talking about...

[LordRaven]

we shall see
farage is the hot air you was talking about...

In what respect? Left yourself a 360 degree room for error with that comment

And I didn't say fuck all, the link I posted did

Get it right

Farage is making the Big 3 tremble and that is all I care about, as long as they're crapping themselves they will have to amend their ways and LISTEN TO US, get it?