Worst of all while it may be “validated” for being sensitive to error, I have yet to see that it is specific enough. That is, can someone show me that the tools are not detecting death period? All the proxies are events one would also expect in a dying patient without error.
-
-
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon
Throughout our 30+ interviews we encountered people who argued just as fervently that 440k was too low. That the number of deaths across the board caused by easily preventable systemic flaws could be higher.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToErrIsHumanDoc @gorskon
Fanstastic. 440 would be over half of all deaths happening in the hospital and thats too low. There are people who won’t be happy until it’s 100% I guess but that doesn’t seem a good reason to listen to them. Do any of them actually treat patients?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Do you not get how that is prima facie absurd? I have no doubt that there are people with careers invested in making this the number 1 priority, but there is significant pushback for a reason and it’s not that we are defensive - it’s that measuring this wrong causes real harm.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon
All I can really say is that we worked for 3 years on this film, using interviews from leaders in medicine and policy. We worked hard to provide a balanced look at what is being done to improve the flaws in our health care system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If the use of this numbers means you will not give our film a chance, I can’t make you watch it. But I do believe our film’s intent is good & helpful. We can’t tackle every area of this issue, so I am happy that people like you both are working hard to promote more accurate data.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If a new study is released, and is widely cited and uses new data, we will absolutely share it and promote the widespread dissemination of it, whether it is 600k or 60k. I’m sorry you feel our intentions are bad.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToErrIsHumanDoc @gorskon
Mark Hoofnagle Retweeted Mark Hoofnagle
Ok, if this were extrapolated similarly would lower the number to about 25k for the entire US (but based on UK system) https://twitter.com/markhoofnagle/status/972591111922442240?s=21 … I have to call bullshit on you. Tons of other estimates exist, based on far more rigorous and established methods.
Mark Hoofnagle added,
Mark Hoofnagle @MarkHoofnagleReplying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon @ToErrIsHumanDocSo, why take an estimate based on a likely invalid and poorly replicable algorithm (and the high end of that estimate) than directly measured estimates based on, for instance, avoidability? http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3239 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You have chosen the highest estimate from the biggest outlier for dramatic impact, not truth or rigor. This is an extensive and complex literature that is routinely abused for headlines. It’s lazy, stupid, and will result in real harm. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2016/05/superficial-coverage-of-medical-errors-could-leave-erroneous-impression-with-readers/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I realize David and I come out a bit hot when we hear this but this is a myth that will go down as just as wrong and persistent as “humans only use 10% of their brains” I have a talk I give on this routinely. If you are interested in a real critique of this field, DM me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's no use. He's not listening. He never really was.
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.