Right, so re VoC. The value-based care aspect of quality is that you as physician and your patient are a team, and you will jointly agree health outcomes that are to be the measure of care quality. High quality = meeting pt health goals Low quality = not meeting them
-
-
And to my point that, at times, an "error" can be made no matter what.pic.twitter.com/DrKzKdfH5m
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @gorskon
Yes! and 3. You assessed the pt as not needing opioids, they became dysregulated later at home due to pain, and suicided We could have a really long discussion here on whether a bad outcome is necessarily a medical error, but that maybe distracts from more likely error modes /2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
For example - pt got the wrong medication - wrong concentration - wrong dose - wrong frequency - drug-drug interaction There are a lot of near misses, and far too many injuries or deaths from preventable errors
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No one would deny those are preventable errors. I just don’t think 20% of Americans die because they were given the wrong med in the hospital. Or the wrong patient was operated on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @gorskon
Neither do I But until a revised estimate comes along that is better, I will tolerate the number 3 on the whiteboard. In the meantime, I will focus on the practical level of patient journey
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Lord knows quacks use this number as a marketing tool.pic.twitter.com/hg2K64uPTI
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @gorskon
Of course they do.. Now try to argue that there are all these statistical things wrong with the measure, and we don't really know what the right measure is, but trust us, we aren't nearly this bad. See how the quacks seize on that one as proof positive we are a bunch of liers
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mloxton @JHowardBrainMD
And if you think the quacks won't keep cherry picking those numbers and claim "cover-up" if better, lower numbers are published, you're astonishingly naive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon @JHowardBrainMD
David, in what universe do you think this continually abrasive and rude tone is either useful or professional? Knock it the hell off, will you? Act like a person Yes, improving on the existing numbers will result in far less leverage for quacks than setting fire to it
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
Says the guy who's pretty darned abrasive himself.
-
-
Lol pots and kettles
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.