National Health Death Service
Michael Moore and his ilk are singing the praises of socialized medicine. Touting the British, Canadian and even Cuban systems as better than the US. I guess we are not supposed to notice things like this report about the hospitals in Britain. That's where a new study shows that one third of all hospital deaths in Britain could have been avoided. The deaths were attributed to several factors, including gross patient neglect and a lack of professional competence.
One third of deaths in hospital investigated by a patient safety watchdog could have been avoided, claims a report released today.
The National Patient Safety Agency looked into 1,804 fatal hospital incidents reported to it in 2005. It found that 576 were "potentially avoidable" if there had been better communication between staff, faster recognition of the patient's deteriorating state, improved training and more accurate interpretation of test results.
Some 425 of the deaths investigated by the NPSA in 2005 were in acute or general hospitals. Of these, 71 were reported to be related to diagnostic errors, in 64 cases the patient's deteriorating condition was not recognised or not acted upon, and 43 involved a problem with resuscitation after cardiac arrest.
The remainder were connected to medication errors, suicide or still-birth.
In 14 of the patients who deteriorated, no checks had been made on them for a prolonged time and changes in their vital signs such as blood pressure, heart rate or temperature were not detected.
In a further 30 cases, the checks had been made but staff either did not recognise the patient's worsening condition or they did not act. In 17 other cases help was sought but there was a delay.
Still think socialized medicine is a good idea?
Update: Wow, many thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link. I wondered what was making the hit counter scream for mercy. Please do look around a little while you're here, folks. Thanks for dropping by to read this post.
Medicine, World news | Gaius Thursday, 26 July , 2007
By FedUp, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 10:52 am
So tell me, Mikey… if Canada has it sooooo good, why do Canadians come down here for medical treatment? And, are we not supposed to ask just how much this fiasco is gonna cost me?
By Frederick, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 12:53 pm
So is this more or less on average than America? Care to complete your thought?
By Steve Egli, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 3:53 pm
One only needs to live in a socialized medicine country for awhile to see what is really at risk. When I have been in these places, as a resident, I soon learned that there were ways for an American to purchase medical care that was far better than anything the natives were getting in their socialized clinics. This should not surprise anyone. It seemed perfectly consistent to the medical personal who were paid by me in cash.
I am not wealthy. I was working in those countries. I do have the belief that my health is my responsibility and my most valuable possession so I have no conflict in making this a spending priority to make sure that I am as healthy as I can be. I think there is a false belief, here and abroad, that someone else should always pay for our health care via insurance, or government direction. I simply don’t get it.
The very idea of having the same people who run the post office, thr roads and congress also run the hospitals and doctors offices is really quite frightening. I want no part of it.
By Marco, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Your claim, as based upon the study, is flawed. I’d suggest an update.
The article reported that one third of all the deaths *investigated by the NPSA* were preventable. This begs the question, why were these particular deaths “reported to [the NPSA]?” My best guess is that they were brought to the NPSA’s attention by loved ones who recognized that something probably went terribly awry.
Without further information, and based on such a small sample size, for you to claim that “one third of all hospitable deaths in Britain could have been avoided” is fallacious. The statistic you cite is just as informative as my claiming that ninety-five percent of all mortalities resulting in civil litigation were preventable. In other words, without the needed information, the study just isn’t that enlightening.
And it *certainly* is not a basis for comparison with the United States.
I e-mailed Hugh Hewitt informing him of the same. I hope you two do the right thing and admit that the claim is overstated.
By Gaius, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 6:26 pm
I posted about a report in the British press. I did not “assume” or “guess” that I had superior information than what was reported. I also did not “inform” the author that he or she was mistaken, incorrect or lying. Nor did I presume to dictate to someone what constitutes the “right thing”.
I’d suggest that you contact the authors of the study with your “best guesses” and demands. Have a really nice life.
By Marco, Thursday, 26 July , 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Ouch.
I thought my claim was modest. I argued that (1) the fact that one third of 1,804 fatalities reported to the NPSA in Britain were avoidable does not entail (quoting you but the emphasis is mine) (2) “one third of *all* hospital deaths in Britain could have been avoided.”
I would be interested in an argument where you prove that (1) entails (2). I’m assuming you are unable to do so. If you can’t, don’t worry about the study, but do update *your* commentary. Integrity is about more than sarcasm.
My best to you. No sarcasm.