emergency rooms
experimental medicine
government interference
hospitals
infections
informed consent government regulations
Taking "informed consent" too far?
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
January 1, 2008 11:24am CST
Infections acquired in hospitals are a major problem. I think we all know of a person who went to teh hospital or emergency room for one problem and later ended up with an infection that we actually got from the hospital.
This is an all too common problem and Johns Hopkins University has been trying to tackle this problem to benefit all of us.
They developed a 5 step checklist to use when starting an IV on a patient - it includes things like washing hands and donning sterile gloves and gowns. The resulting decrease in infections from using this checklist was 2/3rds and when used in ICU's it cut the infection rate from 4% to ZERO. They estimate that in 18 months in the state of Michigan it saved more than 1,500 lives nad $200 million dollars!
But, when they tried to expand the program to other locations, the federal government stepped in and SHUT THEM DOWN.
Why? Because, using a checklist is new and that makes it an "experimental practice". Before using an "experimental practice" you have to get the "informed consent" of both the patient AND their "health-care provider".
So, doctors, nurses, and residents can start IV's without using any checklist ANY way they want (and if the person gets a life threatening infection - too bad). But, they can not use a 5 step checklist without getting a lot of paperwork signed.
I believe in informed consent if you are going to use an experimetnal drug on me or tried a new surgery on me that might or might not even work. But, I think that banning a simple checklist that has already proven beneficial is beyond ridiculous.
While it may be common sense that to prevent infections; you wash and wear sterile attire; obvioiusly this has NOT been taking place in our hospitals or we would not have such a high infection rate.
Here is a link to the whole article - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opinion/30gawande.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=60515be9a41e8b2b&ei=5087%0A
What do you think? Should the government butt out when it is something this simple? If I took a copy of this checklist with me to the hospital; do you think I could get them to use it?
1 person likes this
2 responses
@green4success (80)
• United States
8 Jan 08
Both of my parents are in a Nursing Home and every room has gloves at the door and all of the staff are required to use them when they enter a patients room before touching them and while cleaning the rooms. My Dad is now in the hospital in ICU and before they even let anybody go to the back to see the patients, everyone has to wash their hands. If all hospitals did this, there would certainly be less infections and the spread of disease.
Donna
www.getcleangetrich.com
www.donnablackwell.com
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
9 Jan 08
At least they are trying to protect their patients; but, they have also found that germs can be tranferred to patients from clothing and that is why sterile gowns are also part of the fight to stop these germs.
It is hard to believe that all hospitals, emergency rooms, and doctors offices do not require more hand washing.
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
1 Jan 08
I think the checklist is only part of the problem as much as the fact that they tracked the results. It would open them up to many lawsuits I guess-- I guess it would imply that if people did get an infection that they did not follow the checklist and therefore were negligent.
If the hospital made it part of their SOP and did not track it, I would think that it would be ok.



