Slashdot Mirror


How Norway Fought Staph Infections

eldavojohn writes "Studies are showing that Norway's dirtiest hospitals are actually cleaner than most other countries', and the reason for this is that Norwegians stopped taking antibiotics. A number of factors like paid sick leave and now restrictions on advertising for drugs make Norway an anomaly when it comes to diseases like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A Norwegian doctor explains, 'We don't throw antibiotics at every person with a fever. We tell them to hang on, wait and see, and we give them a Tylenol to feel better.' Norway is the most MRSA free country in the world. In a country like Japan, where 17,000 die from MRSA every year, 'doctors overprescribe antibiotics because they are given financial incentives to push drugs on patients.'"

37 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. Stop with the drugs already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Endure non-life-threatening illnesses without drugs, it helps you build an immune system. Taking drugs means your body never learns to fend for itself, like a spoiled brat.

    1. Re:Stop with the drugs already by dexmachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er, preventative medicine is entirely different from treatment medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics are entirely different compounds. The article is about letting certain illnesses run their course naturally, not saying, "Well, screw it let's just not bother with the whole medicine thing." Unless of course you'd like to see a resurgence in polio.

      It appears that years of media scaremongering and anti-vaccine lobbies have gotten through the youth crowd quite effectively.

    2. Re:Stop with the drugs already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all non-life-threating illnesses help build your immune system. I'm sick and tired of this idea that the immune system is like a muscle that you can build up over time or weaken by taking antibiotics. This is a failure on the public's part for understanding how the immune system actually works.

      MRSA would have exsited with or without antibiotics. It is all just a matter of time. Things evolve, get use to that fact. So do immune systems. If I could point to a large contribution to the flood of antibotics, it would be peoples lack of understanding of how medicine works. People walk into a doctor's office and say, "fix me, fix him, fix her, fix us..." They want instant results, not results that take 24, 48, or 72-hours to take effect. Doctors, as much as they would love to tell you, can't say you're over reacting go home and call me in a week. That's an awsome way to get sued in the US. The moment that people come to the understanding that the only medication that develers instant results is used in leatal injections, will be the opprtunity to educate people to just, "take it easy, stay home, get rest, drink plenty of fluids, and go to the hospital or follow up with your doctor if your symtomps presist or get worst."

      People and the "instant get better" thought process are the real problem of over medication. If no one shows up to the hospital, how do we over medicate? MRSA is just another evolving part of nature, nothing can be done about that. And I dare say that antibiotics do not work the way that you so claim them to work. I would like to see the person who has acquired immunity to something that is treated with antibiotics like Gengreen.

    3. Re:Stop with the drugs already by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MRSA would have exsited with or without antibiotics.

      Do you even know what MRSA means?

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    4. Re:Stop with the drugs already by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No doubt, it's part of the incredible healthcare costs in the U.S.

      Compared to when I was growing up, it seems that people go to the doctor for even the most trivial complaint these days. The fevers I had as a child that got "we'll give it a day or two and see how it is" are now treated like some sort of emergency. Cuts and scrapes that used to mean some iodine and a band aid are treated as if they were an emergency.

      I haven't had medical treatment of any sort in over 20 years. It's not that I'm some sort of superman, just that I don't buy in to the hype.

    5. Re:Stop with the drugs already by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      A poor wording, admittedly, but the GP is right that even without widespread antibiotic use, MRSA would still exist. It just would not be a prevalent strain, as it would not have any advantage over all the other, non-resistent strep strains, so it would be maybe one bacterium out of every thousand instead of better than one in two. Same goes for C diff and other problematic strains. Whether that's a meaningful distinction or not is another question.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Stop with the drugs already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Endure non-life-threatening illnesses without drugs, it helps you build an immune system. Taking drugs means your body never learns to fend for itself, like a spoiled brat.

      Sigh....will the non-trained, please refrain from discussing what they don't know?

      As a physician:

      A) I have little financial incentive to precribe any given antibiotic. No one pays me to give out X number of Zosyn(tm) or Y number of Levaquin (TM) prescriptions per month. Most antiobiotics have limited roles and you can't just throw any drug at an infection.

      The most I get is some free pizza to listen to new drugs that are being released or for new indications for existing antibiotics. And trust me, these guys don't sway my opinion very much....the best argument I hear is that this drug has to be dosed fewer times a day which equates to better compliance both for out-patients and in-patients.

      B) I do often get requests for antibiotics from patients, family, or other allied-heathcare workers and nurses.

      My standing advice for the things that sound like a cold or the flu is to treat it that way for 2 weeks. If someone gets worse, or dosen't get better, they need to see me, or someone else in a professional setting.

      C) I see a large amount of non-complicance with antibiotics....just because you feel better, don't stop taking the antibiotic!

      D) That being said...there is also a large amount of debate and very poor data on what are the optimal durations for different types of infections (these are mostly _complex_ infections with poorly localized sources, or difficult to treat sources like bone-infections (osteomyelitis)).

      E) One must be careful in certain situations that seemingly simple infections not treated with antibiotics may, on occasion, _rapidly_ become dangerous infections. I have lost count of the number of cases where "It was just a pimple three days ago" and now the person comes in with an abscess the size of a golf ball, or a case of necrotizing fasciitis (aka flesh eating bacteria).

      F) there is an amazing amount of ingnorance about the difference between a viral (cold, flu, measles) infection and a bacterial one (pneumonia, abscess, cellulitis/fasciitis) to name just a few.

      So how do I sum up my issuses?

      1) Yes as a whole we do prescribe too many antibiotics...but mostly because of outside pressure....the patient, the threat of a lawsuit... or the fact that an unhappy patient will just so shopping somewhere else for what they think they need...which leads to:

      2) Most people are poorly informed about basic medicine. The think they know more than the doctor....and yes you may know _your_ body better than I, the 4 years of medical school and 7 years of residency I have endured means that I know the average body better than you, and I know one hell of a lots more about the things and aliments that affect your body than you do. Which leads to:

      3) Don't play doctor. You should have stopped that by the time you left the 1st grade. If something isn't right, get it checked out. It is better to treat in the early stages of a disease rather that trying to salvage a patient who has left some thing go. Now this doesn't mean come to my office at the drop of a sniffle, rather use good judegment that when something doesn't seem right...get a professional opinion.

      4) While we may not have all the answers, our training is usually better than then your opinion. If you disagree, please ask questions. Most physicians cut to the chase and give you the treatment....if you don't understand or feel you need to know more, or don't agree with the treatment...say something. I love explaining things to patients....within reason....you're not going to get a medical school education in one office visit.

      As a patient you should learn about your health from a reputable source. Not every website is worth the electrons used to transmit it....
      Sites like emedicine, mdconsult, or webpages from most hospitals or professional (and I mean

    7. Re:Stop with the drugs already by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, MRSA would not have EVER existed without antibiotics. It is a specific set of mutations that reduce the overall vitality of the bacteria in exchange for resistance to antibiotics. Without antibiotics, MRSA would be at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage over regular old SA. Things do evolve, but they evolve towards greater fitness, not lesser. The less frequently SA is in the situation where methicillin resistance is a deciding factor in survival, the less advantageous resistance to it will be. If those situations only happened where an infection was actually life threatening, the resistance wouldn't have evolved. Many people would have an extra day or two of infection (and fewer medical bills) and those who have a SERIOUS infection would have a MUCH better outcome.

      As for the immune system being like a muscle that needs to be exercised, there is a decent and growing body of evidence to support that conclusion and even a good idea of the mechanisms behind it.

      I agree that patients with an instant fix mentality to minor illnesses (that can't be instantly fixed anyway) are a part of the problem, but on the other hand, they are simply deferring to the experts like they are told to.

    8. Re:Stop with the drugs already by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also with your father being a doctor, he has incentive to give you medical advice which is in your best interest, rather than the advice which makes him the most money (as mentioned in the article)...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Stop with the drugs already by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please do explain to me what you mean by "anti-vaccine lobbies." A lobby or lobbyist is a representative of a monied interest. What monied interest out there profits from NOT selling something? Because the anti-vaccine idea is all about not purchasing vaccines. Please tell me who these lobbyists are.

      I'm not the OP, but I can probably answer that question for you. There are several "Anti-vaccine" groups that have a lot of money and could be considered "Lobbyists".

      1. The well meaning, but ultimately wrong, "Vaccines cause Autism" group. I don't know that they actually have a formal lobbying group, but they are numerous, vocal, and have several politicians at least paying lip service to them.

      2. The "Anti-modern Medicine" folk. They are a sub set of the "Anti-modern Science" population that don't trust what they don't understand and have made an emotional (thus irrefutable) decision to go back to old style medicine. That old medicines either didn't work, or worked becuase of chemical compounds that are the basis of many "Modern" drugs is a fact lost on them based on the origin of their decision (Emotion vs. Reason).

      There is a lot of overlap between the groups, and collectively there is a lot of money involved. Many of those that vocally espouse either view point are not actually believers, but cynical con-men who are selling all of their dupes vials of distilled water and passing it off as a better "Safer" alternative.

      I'm not saying I disagree that the case for Swine-Flu was overblown. I go the vaccine, but only because I have a 4month old at home, who's immune system isn't developed enough to handle any flu (I got the seasonal flu vaccine as well). However, before this year I'd never gotten a flu vaccine, and I've seen some pretty convincing explanations on why we shouldn't bother giving it to the elderly, the group that everyone says needs it most (Hint: rates of flu fatalities in the elderly have not changed since before the existance of the flu vaccine).

      More on what the OP said. Vaccines and antibiotics are different. Vaccines exercise the immune system while minimizing the risk of severe problems, whereas antibiotics fight infection on behalf of the immune system potentially reducing the immune systems effectiveness on repeat challenge in the future. I've been of the opinion that antibiotics are abused by human medicine, and the cause of MSRA like "Super-Bugs" and not any of the usual scape goats. However, I have to admit that I'm involved in animal agriculture and understand why and when antibiotics are fed to animals, one of the popular whipping boys in the EU and increasingly in the US.

      [Soapbox]That direct administration of antibiotics in a reckless manner to humans cuts out several degrees of separation between potential antibiotic resistance gene appearance, and the human population seems to be lost on anyone involved in policy. That the complete ban of antibiotic use in animal agriculture in the EU almost a decade ago hasn't resulted in any changes in the prevalence of antibiotic resistance gene prevalance or rate of spread in either the livestock or human populations is very telling, but being ignored for the most part by the legislator both in the EU (who'd have to admit they were wrong in order to reverse there knee-jerk decision) and to a lesser extent the US (who are simply ignoring the science so that they can jump on the bandwaggon being driven by the EU). Hopefully they'll see this as further confirmation that HUMAN use of antibiotics like candy is the primary problem and legislate accordingly, but I doubt it.[/soapbox]

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:Stop with the drugs already by Delkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People with breathing issues should be cautious.

      Actually, that might be a good enough reason for other people to get vaccinated as well. Even if it's mostly people with risk factors that develop serious cases, having more people vaccinated reduces the spread of the flu in general, and that will mean fewer people with risk factors will catch it as well. The group of people who are at risk is not isolated from the rest of the population so their risk is not independent of how the flu spreads in the population in general. The normally healthy person might have a rather mild case himself but someone with higher risk could still contract the virus from him, and that's all the more likely if more people around them are infected. Also, just not being in contact when you have the flu is not enough due to the incubation period.

      That's one reason I'll probably take the vaccine when its available to me sometime soon. Also, even though the first wave of the flu has been quite mild -- more or less on par with any yearly flu -- we don't know exactly yet what the second wave is going to be like. Other major flu pandemics have also had second or third waves, and those might be more devastating than the first one.

      Don't get me wrong. I've been mostly just annoyed by what has sometimes approached hysteria around H1N1. I'm the last one to advocate panicking or useless measures whose only purpose is to create a false sense of security, or convince the public that something is being done. I do believe, however, that vaccinations against H1N1 are likely to actually save lives, perhaps someone else's even if I'm not at much risk myself.

      As for antibiotics, TFA is probably spot on.

    11. Re:Stop with the drugs already by mjwx · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a physician:

      Lies,

      That writing was far to neat for any kind of doctor.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Stop with the drugs already by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While your understanding is partially correct, you conclusion (which is common) is fundamentally flawed.

      Modeling shows that use of antibiotics in livestock at worst will decrease the amount of time it takes for a resistance gene to appear by 2 to 5 years (they will appear anyway, it's just a matter of time). Whether the appearance is either as a result of a novel mutation or of selective pressure in favor of a previously existing gene is immaterial (although the later is more likely). Once the gene appears and enters the human population (transfer to the human population is slow are rare, because the species that can set up permanent or semi-permanent populations within the intestines of human and swine are surprisingly different) the rate of transfer between humans is no different than if the gene originated in humans. It's not the existence of MRSA that is the problem per se, but the occurrence of MRSA in immune compromised populations like the elderly, who spend a lot of time in hospitals where MRSA is almost ubiquitous. MRSA poses little risk to a healthy adult.

      It is the excessive use of antibiotics by human medical professionals that have turned hospitals into islands of MRSA. And it is the usual lack of generally good hygiene that results in MRSA spread between individuals outside of the hospital. The best suggestions I've seen for guidelines are to ban the use of New classes of antibiotics in animals until we start finding bacterial strains that are resistant in humans. By that point the horse will already be out of the barn and use in animals will cause no further risk to humans. However, the last draft I saw of the regulations proposed by the FDA was to let antibiotics be used in animals UNTIL the appearance of resistant bacteria, and then a complete ban (around 2004). I don't know if the FDA's guidelines have been revised, but I do know that there are several Democratic Representatives that keep trying to slip an EU style ban into unrelated bills as a rider.

      Eliminating the use of antibiotics in livestock for which resistance genes are already common is pointless. The genes are already in the human population and a ban does nothing to stop their existence or spread. All you do in that case is increase the production costs of animal agriculture by increasing weaning mortality, days-to-market, feed costs, management costs, etc. This has been shown to be true in the EU. No reductions have been see in resistance gene prevalence in livestock, their handlers, or the general population as a result of the ban, and despite 2-3 years with similar performance to that pre-ban, all of the production criteria I mentioned have experienced a decrease since then. A lot of money is being spent trying to find alternative to antibiotics, but nothing has come close to matching it and that money could be better spent on finding new antibiotics or in some other area of research.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  2. The People Problem by LtCol+Burrito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the doctors writing out scrips for antibiotics does play a role, one of the major factors should be patient education. A lot of people think that antibiotics should be used for minor complaints, such as colds. In addition, one major cause of superbugs is the failure of patients to complete a course of antibiotics. They feel better, so they simply stop taking the medications.

    1. Re:The People Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why do you think they act like that ? I don't know about the US but here TV ads for antibiotics where everywhere a couple years ago, pretty much telling you to take some even when you weren't sick because hey ANTIBIOTICS ARE GOOD FOR YOU. The whole idea of allowing medical companies to run ads and pay doctors to promote their stuff is a recipe for disaster.

    2. Re:The People Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I take as many antibiotics as possible specifically to breed better super bugs.
      And only a time travelling Bruce Willis can stop me now.

    3. Re:The People Problem by trollebolle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Norway's answer to the people problem is to ban ads for medicine that are regulated in any way, like antibiotics. Medicine must be prescribed by a doctor (you can't by antibiotics in a convenience store), and the doctor don't get patients that want a certain medicine after watching a TV ad. Advertisement for medicine is considered to be too dangerous to be allowed, as the decision regarding medical treatment should be left to the doctor, not the pharmaceutical companies through aggressive marketing.

    4. Re:The People Problem by WegianWarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Being a Norwegian married to an American, I feel I have a grasp of both sides of the issue - although I'll admidt that I don't have first hand experience of the US health care system.
      Yes, compared to their US conterparts Norwegian doctors are really stingy with antibiotics.Off course, part of what allows them to be - apart from the whole mindset - is a) that Norwegians can take up to three sick days off* without a note from their Doctor, and b) Norwegians have a single Doctor they need to relate to** so the Doctor knows the patient better and the patient knows the Doctor. In fact we - my better half and I - seldom gets away with any less than half an hour in the Doctors office; with as much time spendt catching up since last time as on the actuall medical stuff.
      Compare this to my inlaws who has to go to the Doc-in-a-box if they are feelign poorly, sit among other sickly people and wait for a Doctor - any Doctor who happen to be free - to have a look at them, give them a note and send them home (after a detour to work to hand in the note); probably with a prescription for a drug choosen not mainly on basis of what will help the most, but on what their insurance will cover. The staff isn't interested in making usre the patients gets the best care - it's all about processing them fast. So yes, I can see how easy it is to prescribe aome broad specter antibiotics if someone comes in with a fever - if it's an infection it'll knock it down, and if it's caused by something else you'll get the placebo effect. The patient is happy (and sick), the Doctor has done his job in ten minutes and my inlaws has spent half a day to get two days off work... whereas I could have picked up the phone, called my boss and told him I would stay home, rolled over and let my body handle it.
      And yes, I know I'm overgeneralising - but I'm trying to get a point across and that often work better if done with broad strokes.
      *) Part of the horror of a 'socialist healt care system'.
      **) Another part of the horrible 'socialist healt care syste' - if you don't like your Doctor you can go online to change; up to two times a year, more if you move.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  3. This article is so RIGHT by edwebdev · · Score: 5, Informative

    So much of modern antibiotic use (at least in the U. S.) is hugely irresponsible. Doctors prescribe antibiotics not because they are necessary, but because they are heckled by patients who want a prescription to justify their trip to the doctor's office and because they are encouraged by pharmaceutical companies to move their products.

    Anybody who knows anything about biochemistry and/or pharmaceuticals knows that novel drugs that are SAFE and EFFECTIVE are enormously expensive to develop and clinically test. It's idiotic to use these medical tools, which have finite effectiveness due to resistance development, unless they are truly necessary.

    Antibiotic-resistant bacteria develop their resistance at a cost - a resistant organism that can out-survive normal bacteria in the presence of antibiotics will probably die out in a normal environment if it hasn't already gained an overwhelming majority. The mutations that provide antibiotic resistance will, in most cases, make the organism less fit or efficient than an unresistant strain in an antibiotic-free environment. The fact that Norway's policies are working is partial proof of this.

    In short, people are idiots and everyone should really be following the example the Norwegians have set here.

    1. Re:This article is so RIGHT by Nutria · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doctors prescribe antibiotics not because they are necessary, but because they are heckled by patients who want a prescription to justify their trip to the doctor's office

      Except when I asked the pediatrician why he was prescribing antibiotics for my son's cold, he said, "To protect against secondary bacterial infections."

      Which, of course, we refused.

      Still, it goes to show that not all Conventional Wisdom is actually correct.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Clearly, it sounds like Norwegian hospitals are on the right track, with respect to antibiotic handling.

    I would be interested to know, though, how much the favorable microbial climate there is due to medical attitudes toward antibiotic use, and how much comes down to antibiotic use(and ideally nonuse) in the agricultural sector. At least in the US, medical antibiotic misuse is quite visible, and makes for a good morality tale(lazy, impatient, whiny consumers demand quick fix, need to learn more patience); but most livestock are given a constant low dose of various antibiotics(pretty much the best scenario for antibiotic resistance) for most of their lives. Then they are chopped up and ground together, to spread anything that they might have evolved evenly through the food supply(and, since a fair few antibiotic-resistance adaptations occur on bacterial plasmids, rather than in their core genomes, they can spread from species to species pretty quickly).

    The problem is comparatively invisible, since most people don't see what goes on inside the barn, while a great many doctors are more than happy to encourage(at least generally, if not always when they have a distressed parent and some crying sniffling baby to deal with) responsible antibiotic use; but over half of US-produced antibiotics go into livestock rather than humans(and the numbers might actually be worse than that sounds, since it could well be that bulk agricultural antibiotics are more likely to be produced in cheaper offshore locations than are the more heavily regulated, and more profitable, human ones).

    It would be very interesting to know what the Norwegian agricultural sector is up to in this respect, and how much of an effect that has.

    1. Re:Hmm... by geirnord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a wife who have worked, and is working, in the these medical fields. According to her, we (Norway) have some of the strictest laws regarding veterinary use of antibiotics. We had some problems with overuse of antibiotics in the fish farming sector some years back. Since then things have gotten even tighter. In many other countries use of antibiotics as a preventative medication in food is the norm. This is not legal in Norway.

      The effect of this is not studied, at least to our knowledge, in any scientifically accurate way. However, I believe this is one of the reasons we do not have problems with MRSA in Norway. There are few natural places where you can be infected i nNorway, whereas in USA you can get MRSA from spending time at the beach!! Ref: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/16/mrsa-on-the-beach/

  5. Re:And when the arm has to come off... by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...because the dogbite was infected (as they usually are)?

    And this is an exception to the rule. Another obvious exception is surgery, where antibiotics are used to prevent postoperative infections and organ rejection.

    The idea is that your sniffles don't require azithromycin, that your cough and throat ache don't need penicillin, and that your fever doesn't need ampicillin.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  6. At the other end of the spectrum by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On holiday in Malaysia my son was sick so we took him to a doctor. The doctor couldn't really do anything. My son was reacting to the climate and refusing to eat solids but he gave us a bottle of antibiotic dispensed from his surgery "just in case"

    So I queried that and he quickly said oh well don't worry about it if you don't think he needs it. It seems that everybody in Malaysia just gets antibiotics automatically when they go to the doctor. My wife grew up in Malaysia and when she gets a cough she gets it for weeks at a time.

  7. MD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a medical doctor, I can attest to a general over-prescription of antibiotics. I work in Sweden, where we generally don't use as much antibiotics as other parts of the world, but I would say that we use far too much anyway. I am a surgical resident, who is often on call and have a lot of out-patients. The demand from patients that you prescribe some kind of antibiotics is huge, absolutely huge, even for simpler infections where there is little evidence that it will actually shorten the length of illness or level of symtoms. Trying to educate a patient on the matter in a few minutes is no easy task, and other than a general sense of responsibility, nothing keeps one doing just that. Even then, I often hear of my patients going to a different doctor after one or a couple of days and then getting a prescription, even if they haven't gotten any worse. I don't think that there is any easy fix to this problem. People expect a life free of disease, and if they do get some minor illness, they expect immediate recovery. (I am speaking very generally here, of course...)

  8. Tip for USA by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Scandinavia, most doctors are government employees. They have no incentive for prescribing anything and can freely tell their patients to bugger if they ask for useless drugs. Yes, there are disadvantages to "communist" healthcare, but this story shows there are also some clear advantages. A Belgian Doctor once told me he believed antibiotics should be given as a prevention to all kindergarten kids. A Danish study showed you can cut sick days in kindergartens by half by forcing all children to wash their hands twice a day.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  9. Re:If this is what Universal Health Care is like.. by geirnord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA is painting a picture about Norwegian hospitals that are easy to misinterpret. Yes, floor ar streaked and scratched, there is some dust on cabinets and blood pressure monitors.

    Howevery, there it is still not dirty and messy as can be interpreted by the article. Cleaning staff in Norway actually have a 3- year education in cleaning! Translated school information site They learn how to spot the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous dirty surfaces. Think in your own home: The dust on the TV isn't dangerous, but the food spills on the kitchen counter can be. The cleaning staff is simply authorized and empowered to perform the important cleaning first, and leave non-dangerous dirt until they have the time to take care of it.

  10. Did someone in Norway really say 'Tylenol' ? by yakumo.unr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or was a quote altered to push a US (only?) brand?

    1. Re:Did someone in Norway really say 'Tylenol' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nobody says 'Tylenol' in Norway (since it doesn't exist here), but we do say 'Paracetamol'. It was probably an adaptation by the journalist so the majority of US readers would know that a simple analgesic can be used as a doctor's visit consolation prize. That being said, isn't 'Tylenol' on its way to become a generic word? Just curious ...

  11. What? Of course it does. by BoxedFlame · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you get staph in Norway, it's treatable. If you get it in the US it isn't. How does that not solve the problem?

  12. I think he does. by spineboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The GP poster had a very well thought out, and reasonable argument. For those who do not know, MRSA is Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus - a "resistant" version of a common skin flora bacteria that everyone has. It is resistant to the common penicillin (PCN) antibiotic families, and thus has to be treated with another antibiotic, that breaks down the bacterias cell wall in a different way, with an antibiotic such as Vancomycin. MRSA is comonly found now in gyms, locker rooms common surfaces, etc, but there are multiple strains of it. THe whole culture of having germicidal stuff in all our cleansers and soaps, doesn't help either.

    MRSA first surfaced in Japan, where antibiotic (ABX) treatment of anything, was over prescribed, and thus developed there. As far as the USA goes, he is correct in the assumption in that people will undoubtably sue for appropriate behavior like that. People sue for anything nowadays.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  13. Bravo +1 to the poster. by spineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a surgeon in the USA, and fell exactly that way, as do the majority of my colleagues. I also feel the same way about companies advertising for artificial hips and knees.
    Some patients will actually say.
      "I want the Jack Nickolaus artificial knee." They just have no freakin idea why they want it, or what about it makes it appropriate, or inappropriate for some people.

    I also think that the abmulance chasers should not be allowed to sue for any drug that has been approved by the FDA (unless there was some form of malice used to approve it).

    Ahhh - such is life.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  14. It's not just the antibiotics that are a problem by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I started showing signs of mental health issues and went to see a psychiatrist, their reaction was essentially throw the book at me. They put me on wave after wave of things I can't even pronounce, some of which had horrifying side effects. Eventually, I had such a bad psychological reaction to one of the meds that I had to be admitted to the emergency room. That night, my attending physician signed me over to an insanity ward and I spent three weeks there, unable to leave. Seriously, I was not allowed to leave because I was considered a "danger to myself and others". I can assure you this was not the case at all until people started messing with my head.

    My point is, these days with every small hiccup in orderly behavior, you get closer and closer to being tossed off a cliff into the pit of mental abnormality. Once you're in that pit, you're free game for doctors to control the way you think. I have friends that have gone through light bouts of depression but now will probably be on dangerous medication for the rest of their lives. I myself am on a dependancy-forming drug that alters the way I think and has a high risk of diabetes and liver failure. Years ago, there were no fancy drugs or somesuch to be prescribed for mental health conditions. For the most part, people just dealt with their issues. I would have gotten over my stress-related issues. Perhaps it would have involved a nervous breakdown, but the modern route put me through much worse.

    I suppose I'm on the business end of the whole mental health thing, so I'm bound to be biased. Even so, you do not want to get involved in this stuff. I have yet to hear of anyone that has actually been helped, or even not hurt by psychiatrists.

  15. Re:How did they do this? by hachete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the UK, cleaning was almost universally outsourced, because of some management ideology about core-functions. It turns out that cleaning *is* a core function of a hospital (see a previous poster about the training of Norwegian cleaners) and should not be left to the cheapest bidder.

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  16. Correction to many erroneous posts by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I happen to be a bit of an expert in this field - no shit

    below is from memory; if people are really interested, i can pull out some references from the scientific literature that back all of this up
    MRSA stands for "methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus", and it was 1st detected in the UK in the (i think ) '60s

    lets backup a bit

    the human body is covered, inside and out, with bacteria, which can be harmful, neutral or beneficial - for instance, vitamin B12, a requirement for life, is made by bacteria.
    All humans carry Staphylococcus epidermidis; ~ 20% also carry S aureus, which prefers to live in moist places like the inside of the nose (anterior nares) throat, axilla, groin and rectum. Epidermidis is pretty harmless, except for people with implanted devices like catheters; since epi likes "surfaces" it tends to colonize the surface of catheters.
    Most people have either epi or aureus, but not both,and these two bugs are a small part of the total skin microflora.

    In general, having S aureus on your skin or in your nose does not seem to be harmful; however, if you have a cut, and aureus gains entry to the bloodstream, this is a very serious matter. S aureus , whoose genome is sequenced, carrys a host of "virulence factors" that make it a particularly dangerous infection in the blood; in th era before antibiotics, the mortality rate for aureus septicemia was over 50%, and perhaps 80% in some hospitals (!).

    That is, ify ou were a physcian in the most advanced medical center in the world in the 1940s, and a healthy patient got an aureus infection in the blood - perhaps due to infection of a surgical site , where the skin is open- there was a 50% chance that pateint would die. Aureus also tends to grow on the heartvalves, which is the disease known as endocarditis; i should think it obvious that having a film of bacteria on your heart valves is not a good idea.

    It is easy to see how penicillin, which was very effective, was viewed as a miracle drug. However, within a few years, aureus became resistant to penicillin, and hospitals were starting to see epidemics of untreatable penicillin resistant aureus.

    Luckily, the pharmaceutical compnaies and thier scientists had variations of penicillin - the first was methicillin; since then, dozens of beta lactam antibiotics, the mot advanced of which are the carbapenems and fifth generation cephalosporins (wikipedia is good here) have ben developed.
    Staph took 10-20 years to become resistant to methicillin; however, when staph do become resistant, they do so by aquisition of a virus like element (SCCmec) which often carries resistance to a whole host of other antibiotics, so that MRSA is actually a bug that is resistant to many drugs. (technically, SCCmec encodes a replacement for PBP2a, PBP2a', which has a lactam resistant transpeptidase function; but no transglycosylase). the origin of SCCmec is unkown.

    The drugs of choice for MRSA are vancomycin, daptomycin and colistin; ceftobiprole, approved in canada and switzerland , is supposed to be very effective.
    Vancomycin is very $ and nephrotoxic; the others are worse.

    If one looks at different countrys around the world, one sees that some countrys - in particular the netherlands and the scandanavian countrys - have very low rates of MRSA, that is most of the aureus is methicillin sensitive.

    However, if you look in detail - and believe me, a lot of scientists have looked very hard - it is hard to find one particular reason why these countrys have low rates of MRSA; rather, it seems to be due to a "bundle" of practices. In general, these countrys have good antibiotic stewardship - drugs are not prescribed unless you need them; they spnd a lot on controlling outbreaks, and they are very carefull to test people from outside the country, who might hve MRSA, when they enter the hospital.

    In the US, the statistics on how many people get MRSA and how many die have been compiled by several authors; the most well known is monica klevens of the CDC.
    Now it

  17. Re:The plural of anecdote is not data... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, it could be random coincidence or that you just happen to have a stronger immune system than the average person, but I guess your nonsense rationale sounds better. Also, remind me never to have dinner with you. You might enjoy the taste of your own shit, but I don't.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  18. Re:The plural of anecdote is not data... by scottv67 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >And guess what. I'm NEVER sick. No headcolds, no flus, no coughs, no phlegm. I'm not allergic to peanuts or other household items because my body is bored (it's just a theory).

    Please, please, please stop repeating that "your immune system is fragile/angry because Mommy and Daddy didn't love you enough to let you crawl on the dirty kitchen floor" BULLSHIT. Your personal health history is just one data point. Just because you lived like a pig as a child and you now have very few health problems doesn't mean that theory applies to everyone.

    I grew up exposed to plenty of mud, dirt, animals and hay. Guess what? I am allergic to nearly everything that my asthma doctor has tested me for. Trees, pollen, animal dander, etc. I also take medications every day to keep my asthma in check. Why didn't the mud and dust and the hay loft impart a Superman-like immune system to me? Because your theory is BULLSHIT. I know why I have the health problems that I have: genetics. I inherited these "features".

    Another data point for your "clean kids are sick kids" theory: While I am alllergic to just about everything and I take Advair morning and night to keep my bronchii happy, my brother has none of these issues. We grew up in the same house, exposed to the same mud, wood smoke, hay, grass, etc. Why am I allergic to a great number of things when my brother (just a few years younger than me) is allergic to nothing and had never had a problem breathing in his life? Explain that one to me... The answer is genetics, not exposure to mud.

    >Compared to my college roommate, who grew up in what sounded nothing less than a clean room, who was sick when the weather changed. HAD to have the bottom bunk because of random nose bleeds in the middle of the night.

    Your college roommate probably grew up in a "clean room" because his parents found out early in his life that he had certain health problems and made adjustments to his living conditions to minimize his symptoms. Did he grow up without carpeting in his bedroom? No stuffed animals? No pets in the house? Did he have to wash his hands after petting the neighbor's cat? Was he told to stay out of the hay loft? These are most likely reactions to his health problems and definitely not the cause of them. He lived in a "clean room" because it was one of the ways to minimize his symptoms.

    I am very glad that you have excellent health. But please stop spreading that "clean kids will have weak immune systems" myth. Thank you.