dispatches from the new world of work

Read It!

There is a fabulous "must read" six-part article in this week's (07.18) U.S. News & World Report, titled "Saving Lives: Hospitals Have Signed on to a Six-part Plan to Avoid a Multitude of Unnecessary Deaths." (Many of the Rx's are quite simple, amazingly enough.)

Hospitals can respond to the 100,000 or more people they murder annually! This article describes how. It is long ... LONG LONG ... overdue.

Hats Waaaaay Off to Patron Saint & Mt Rushmore candidate Dr Donald Berwick, who gets an enormous share of the credit for hammering away at this issue. The "hear no evil, see no evil" AMA and various hospital associations join GM's Rick Wagoner in the Bozos Hall of Shame on this one.

More "hats off' to Pennsylvania for becoming the first state to, according to USA Today (07.13), "publicly report the toll hospital infections take." (Numbering 11,600 in PA last year, and killing 1,500 people—or 4 full 747s as I like to translate it.) Again, the industry's stalwarts have fought like the NRA to derail such transparency. (Of course fatal gun accidents—including murders?—pale by comparison to hospital malfeasance.)

Action item: Demand action—Radical Action—from your doctor & hospital.

Tom Peters posted this on 07/14/05.

Comments

According to USA Today there were 29,573 gun-related deaths in 2001 in the US. Compare this with 100,000+ hospital (those places where you go to get well, not die) related deaths.

Seems like we need a five day waiting period before checking into a hospital.

Posted by Jack at July 15, 2005 8:14 AM

Agreed, the hospital error numbers are staggering. But, they also necessitate a more comprehensive statistical eye. While I'll never claim to be a stats wonk, it is clear that by nature of, well, nature, there is argument as to whether there is an increase medical errors. To lightly touch on the topic:

1. The U.S. population grows, which conceivably means more people seeking healthcare, which conceivably means more chances for error.

2. There is a huge focus on medical error, especially since the Institute of Medicine's report "To Err is Human." Which leads to...

3. A question of what constitutes "error?" This is an offshoot of the argument between true malpractice v. what is effectively maloccurrence.

Posted by Lee H. Igel at July 15, 2005 8:54 PM

Can you say "Accountability!".

Chuck

Posted by chuck at July 16, 2005 4:59 AM

"Totally avoidable mal-occurence" is what led me ... reluctantly ... to use the term "murder."

Posted by tom peters at July 17, 2005 11:29 AM

Brilliant Tom - please keep rattling the healthcare cage.

I worked for 35 years in healthcare in the UK.

Over here we don't murder quite so many - but only because our population is less than yours.

The 4 - 747's is a wonderfully powerful illustration. If four jumbo jets came down in PA in one year I think there might just be some serious questions asked.

You are so right Tom - we can all do something - Everyone must ask serious questions of their doctor about this.

Hospitals never have been and never will be healthy places.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 17, 2005 5:50 PM