WebMD Blogs
Icon

Mad About Medicine

Dr. Ira Kirschenbaum's Mad About Medicine blog has now been retired. We appreciate all the wisdom and support Dr. Kirschenbaum has brought to the WebMD community throughout the years.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Hospitals: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I recall the hospital in my small town during the time I was growing up. It was St. Joseph's Hospital. The nurses were nuns and from what I could tell in the short time I stayed there after my double hernia operation, they were close to God.

St. Joe's (local name), like all the hospitals of its time, had a unique smell. The hospitals always had a smell that separated them from the real world that I lived in. Back then it was the smell that only comes from something that emits its character in an odor. It was an antiseptic smell. It was a quiet smell. It was a smell of respect in the neighborhood of disease. The focus of the hospital was the care of the patient at all cost. A unique focus. A focus that emitted a unique smell.

The smell of hospitals today is indistinguishable from any strip mall located on a turnpike in New Jersey, Illinois, or California. I've tried to figure this out over this past year in my travels. Not only do I admit patients to my own hospital, but because some people think I have some interesting things to say (fools are everywhere), I get to travel and visit a number of hospitals across the country.

At first, hospitals appear to have no smell at all because there are thousands of special interests within a hospital that emit so many odors that they cancel each other out. By the end of last year, they just smelled like crap to me. Hospitals spend their waking days preparing for yearly inspections from agencies created to survey, approve and accredit hospitals. Unfortunately, dotting the i's and crossing the t's on all the survey points has little to do with patient care.

What I See

Hospitals seem to only care about profitable diseases. One would think that this entire country is filled with only three types of people:
  1. Very healthy women having babies

  2. People with cancer that need chemotherapy or radiotherapy

  3. People with heart disease that need a stent procedure.
I say this because in every hospital I go to, the obstetrics floor, the "I am a Person With Money" Cancer Center and the Invasive Cardiology Wing look like a Ritz-Carlton hotel. When I tour a hospital and the administrator proudly displays these freaks of medical construction, I usually drop out of these tours and check out the rest of the hospital.

First, I look for what is called the Med-Surg floor. This is the floor where people with all kinds of other diseases go. What I usually find are dirty floors, linens piled outside rooms in overflowing bins, nurses who are tired and ignored and patient-to-doctor nursing ratios that approach the population base in the largest province in China.

In one hospital I recently went into, the Orthopaedic Floor had an inadequate number of pain pumps, older continuous passive motion machines, and an anemic physical therapy section that looked like a public toilet in a NYC subway.

In college sports there is a program called Title IX - this means that men's sports cannot get more funding that women's sports. We should have this in hospitals. If funding is given for a particular disease then a percentage must go to the rest of the hospital as well.

Medicine is not a business; Hospitals are.

Hospitals are run by Boards, administrators, and professional businesspeople. Doctors are not businessmen. We all seem to know this. Here's the 411 on something you don't know - medicine is not a business. That's right. You will probably hear every freaking "expert" in the country banter all day long that medicine is a business. No way.

Hospitals are businesses; medicine is a calling. Medicine - which includes doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, unit clerks, radiology technicians and more - is a world that defies all the rules of economics. Applying the rules of economics to medicine leads to "acceptable" loss of life.

I recall that a number of military strategists used to talk about "acceptable" losses in nuclear warfare. What a concept. Businesses like Pepsi and Microsoft understand acceptable losses. If Pepsi has a division that they spent a lot of money on but is not working, they will sell or close the division. An acceptable loss. In medicine, the acceptable loss rate is zero. The acceptable complication rate is zero. The acceptable death rate is zero.

This does not mean that these things don't occur. It means that, as medical people, we refuse to accept it as a way of life and work to the end to prevent these things from happening.

Businessmen running hospitals accept complication rates. They accept infection rates. They accept death rates. Most of the time it happens way before anyone can figure out it was their doing.

A True Story

I was called recently about a problem in a mid-sized community hospital and asked to give an opinion on the situation. It appears that in this hospital there was a growing joint replacement program and the surgeons were concerned about a large transfusion rate as compared to a neighboring hospital.

After some simple research they found that the other hospital had implemented a product called an OrthoPat. This is a product that allows for the salvage of blood during the hip replacement operation and after hip and knee replacements. This meant that during a hip replacement case blood lost during that surgery was able to be put back into the patient. Over the course of a year this product would save almost 150 blood transfusions over the previous system.

What Happened?
  • The surgeon presented the product with all the data to a committee made up of a general surgeon a nurse, and three hospital administrators

  • The committee approved the product

  • The Chief Financial Officer of the hospital unilaterally vetoed the purchase of this even though he did not have the authority to do so.

  • The surgeon spent 3 months complaining to administration about this situation.

  • Finally the system was reapproved.

  • Two weeks before implementation of the system the surgeon got a call the system could not be implemented.

  • The reason for not implementing the system was that the hospital across town that used the system had hospital-based nurse practitioners manage the tubing on the ward.

  • Even though this surgeon's hospital has nurse practitioners on staff in multiple capacities in the hospital the Executive Vice President of the hospital, actually an MD at one point in his life, refused to assign this responsibility to one of these nurse practitioners.

  • When the surgeon inquired why this could not happen, he only received an e-mail reply saying "this service is not available at this time."

  • The product designed to save unnecessary transfusion was stopped from being implemented - again by an administrator.

This is remarkable. A product, known to prevent the need for unnecessary transfusions, was simply not implemented because a single hospital administrator did not want to assign one of the nurse practitioners in the hospital to manage the tubing. I can only assume that he felt that the potential disease transmission that could occur from 150 unnecessary transfusions a year was an acceptable loss. It was acceptable only because it was not in his own operation or in his own family.

I am sure someone who contracted Hepatitis C from one of these transfusions wouldn't think it is very acceptable. I wonder what the hospital will say when a patient who gets sick from one of these unnecessary transfusions, gets an attorney, and sues all of them for this grossly irresponsible behavior.

Not convinced yet?
  • Hospitals are owned by stockholders.

  • Hospitals judge their quality by standards that have nothing to do with health.

  • Many hospitals no longer care for the poor and the underprivileged.

  • Hospitals reward physicians that save money at the expense of patient care.

  • Hospital administrators have no clue concerning their infection rate.

  • Hospitals only order equipment if they either need to market a procedure or are embarrassed into it.

  • Hospitals are political in the way they deal with staff. Congress is political. Need I say more?

  • Doctors within a hospital have little say or power to bring about change. Patients have no say.

Is there another side? I am sure there is. I am sure across this extraordinarily large country there are hospitals driven to the care of their patients and the communities they serve. Unfortunately, you don't get recognition for doing something right unless you also have an extraordinary Public Relations department.

Hospitals will go out of their way to pass all kinds of state regulatory surveys and parade around their success. All they did in these surveys was dot the "i's" and cross the "t's." Stay out of hospitals if you can. You will probably live longer.

Dr. K.

Related Topics:

Technorati Tags: , ,

Labels: ,

Posted by: Doctor K at 8:47 PM

The opinions expressed in the WebMD Blogs are of the author and the author alone. They do not reflect the opinions of WebMD and they have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance or objectivity. WebMD Blogs are not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your physician or other qualified health provider because of something you have read on WebMD. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment. If you think you have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.