Slashdot Mirror


Doctor Slams Hospital's "Please" Policy

Administrators at England's Worthing Hospital are insisting that doctors say the magic word when writing orders for blood tests on weekends. If a doctor refuses to write "please" on the order, the test will be refused. From the article: "However, a doctor at the hospital said on condition of anonymity that he sees the policy as a money-saving measure that could prove dangerous for patients. 'I was shocked to come in on Sunday and find none of my bloods had been done from the night before because I'd not written "please,"' the doctor said. 'I had no results to guide treatment of patients. Myself and a senior nurse had to take the bloods ourselves, which added hours to our 12-hour shifts. This system puts patients' lives at risk. Doctors are wasting time doing the job of the technicians.'"

12 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. Not credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The source for this is an "odd news" blog, whose source is a "newspaper" called The Sun. You may have heard of it. National Enquirer anyone?

    1. Re:Not credible by TouchAndGo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed, I can't find any other source for this news, and it's pretty bizarre to be quoting a tabloid as a source. Unless you're the Men in Black.

  2. Re:Just wanna say by Moofie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mine are.

    They cost me little, and get me lots. Common courtesy is a very good investment.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  3. What happened to "Just Say NO"? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Administrators at England's Worthing Hospital are insisting that doctors say the magic word [CC] when writing orders for blood tests on weekends. If a doctor refuses to write "please" on the order, the test will be refused. The managers said the move is aimed at easing pressure on hospital workers charged with performing blood tests by making doctors consider whether the tests are essential.

    WTF? I was a medical technologist - the staffer who would perhaps collect "the bloods", and certainly would be the one doing the lab tests. I can see several things wrong with this scenario:

    • If this is only a weekend protocol, it violates the K.I.S.S. principle of having things work the same way all the time, and of course they will forget that it's Sunday, bloody Sunday and forget to say pretty please with sugar on it at least half the time.
    • If one or more of the weekend docs are ordering tests that are medically unnecessary or ordering the tests all STAT (extremely urgent) so they can go home sooner, you review their test ordering patterns (easy to do with computers). If a pattern of abuse emerges, having the senior pathologist or the lab manager chew them out for it works wonders.
    • A pathologist, lab administrator, or hospital administrator with backbone can set up a list of tests that will be done STAT, and under what conditions. If Dr. Gottahaveitnow wants something that is not on the list, too bad. He/she can get an override from the lab director.

    • Medical technologists have their own way of dealing with the pile-up of STAT requests. We redefine the acronym to be "Start Test Any Time". We smile and say, "Certainly, I'll get right on it as soon as I finish the STATs from Dr. Wanna Playtennis, Dr. Tooimportanttowait, and Dr. Dammitiforgotmypreops. What is your pager number, I'll call you." That leaves them snarling at each other for cluttering the queue.
  4. Re:Just wanna say by fireylord · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's plenty of problems like this in hospitals. Doctors don't know what things cost, so they tick all the boxes without considering the cost-benefits.

    The Doctors are the people directing the medical care of patients, why should they become accountants?

    This is the NHS, care is free at the point of use, no medical insurance or patients' money issues are meant to be cosidered by the medical staff. If there is an issue with funding for services that is up to the hospital management to deal with, not the administration department.

    It's an obvious attempt at rationing care services, and yes if overnight bloods haven't been done when a doctor has stipulated needing them done for specific patients due to a clinical need for that patient then patient welfare is put at risk!

  5. Re:Story is from The Sun by tsalmark · · Score: 3, Informative

    The sun is affiliated with Faux News?

  6. Re:Story is from The Sun by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

    The sun is affiliated with Faux News?

    Yes. They are both owned by News Corporation.

  7. Re:Easy solution by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Informative

    They will often treat non-MDs who work with them as underlings, who job is purely to aid the doctor from doing those little jobs that they don't like to do.

    While it may not give them the right to act like a prick about it, a technician's job is to do menial tasks so that a doctor or nurse (or engineer, in other fields) doesn't need to. There are plenty of reasons for this, not least of which is that it keeps costs down. Not only does it cost more to pay a doctor to do so (and keep him from his other duties), but the technicians are certainly better at getting lab work done. And, since technicians can't provide patient care, it's best to give each task to those who specialize in it (nurse draws the blood, lab tech runs tests, doctor diagnoses and prescribes treatment).

    It's similar in engineering (electrical in this example, since it's what I do). The engineer designs the circuit, a draftsman lays it out physically, and a technician lays out and solders the parts. Yes, the engineer can do it, but it's not their specialty, and it's much more expensive and slower to have them do it.

    One could certainly make an argument that such jobs are 'below' engineers/doctors, but I wouldn't direct that kind of sentiment to a tech. It's certainly valuable work that they do that saves me a hell of a lot of time, and I try to show my appreciation (lots of 'please' and 'thank you'). It doesn't give me or anyone else the right to shit on a tech, but it is their job to assist the doctor/engineer by doing menial tasks that they don't have time to do.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  8. Re:Story is from The Sun by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Liberal != left wing.

    Before they flipped to supporting Tory, they were supporting Labour, and weren't liberal then either (e.g., they supported Labour's plans to extend detention without charge; they let ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett have a column, who was responsible for all sorts of authoritarian laws). I agree there's still no evidence of them being a liberal paper (though at the moment, the Tories appear to be behaving more liberally than Labour, e.g., scrapping ID cards and planning to restore various lost freedoms).

  9. Re:Story is from The Sun by Camann · · Score: 4, Informative

    Recommended reading for anyone who'd mod 'Faux News' troll.

    --
    I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is.
  10. When I watch a news station... by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I watch a news station, I expect to see news, not commentary. Now, I know that it's not going to be straight, hard-core news 24 hours a day, but still, you have to understand that when I do watch a news station, it's usually because I'm killing some down time and just flipping channels, or there's something going on that I want to know more about.

    So if I have the choice between having a mainstream news station that may not do quite as good a job at reporting the news and that has bits of commentary (CNN) versus a "news" station that has craptons of commentary with a bit of really good news reporting mixed in (Fox), I'll pick the former almost every time. I don't have time to sift through the silliness to get to what I want to know.

    But really, when I want news news, I usually just go somewhere like BBC or NPR on the Internet. In spite of claims to the contrary, I've personally found that Fox is anything but "fair and balanced" in their reporting. Let's be honest, sensationalism trumps any political leanings any of these stations have. Anyone who has been around as long as I have knows that it doesn't matter which side of the spectrum they fall on when it comes to getting the numbers.

  11. Re:Story is from The Sun by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought Fox viewers had been shown to be substantially misinformed?

    Yeah, here we are:

    • 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
    • The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
    • 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

    The real thing to take away here is that you're a fool if you're not listening to NPR.