Dimples wrote:There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.
This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.
Big Fat Frosty wrote:the sheer hypocrisy of maggie loving raven acting like hes the defender of the nhs
ffs.....
Dimples wrote:There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.
This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.
Trapper John wrote:Dimples wrote:There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.
This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.
Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.
Trapper John wrote:Dimples wrote:There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.
This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.
Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.
Dimples wrote:Trapper John wrote:Dimples wrote:There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.
This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.
Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.
The data suggests nothing of the sort. Its manipulation can be made to say almost anything - but that would still not be conclusive.
In what way do you see surgeons as "privileged"?
LordRaven wrote:Big Fat Frosty wrote:the sheer hypocrisy of maggie loving raven acting like hes the defender of the nhs
ffs.....
I'll take that as your capitulation to reason.
Big Fat Frosty wrote: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
Big Fat Frosty wrote:LordRaven wrote:Big Fat Frosty wrote:the sheer hypocrisy of maggie loving raven acting like hes the defender of the nhs
ffs.....
I'll take that as your capitulation to reason.
reached raven bullshit quota for the day
levels are dangerously high
Nigel Farage has been caught on camera admitting he wants to replace the NHS with a US-style private insurance health system.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... ng-4617184
Dimples wrote:Big Fat Frosty wrote: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.
Big Fat Frosty wrote:lol
ive only voted labour twice in 38 years.....
ive voted green far more
Dimples wrote:Big Fat Frosty wrote: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.
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests