Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-up-Doc? dept.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/when-the-doctors-away-the-patient-is-more-likely-to-survive/

A study shows that cardiology patients are more likely to survive when specialists are absent. This study was done as a followup to studies that have shown increased mortality of patients admitted during weekends to investigate whether differences in staffing caused the increase in mortality. Unexpectedly, they found that the patients did significantly better when the relevant specialists were unavailable. The study considered a number of possible causes, including a lower number of aggressive procedures or internal staffing changes.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:14PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:14PM (#129728) Journal

    I really must fight the urge to bring this article to his attention, amidst the family New Year gathering!

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:30PM

      by jackb_guppy (3560) on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:30PM (#129734)

      Share it with him!

      My own family can not spend more that 30 minutes in the same room. Last time we tried was 15 years ago. Now it is just a quick call to say "hi". Cuts down on Christmas presents and travel costs.

  • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:38PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:38PM (#129737) Journal

    Cardiologist One to Cardiologist Two: "Hey! Watch me do this!"

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Monday December 29 2014, @05:26PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:26PM (#129988)

      You forgot to preface that with "Hold my beer."

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tibman on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:23PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:23PM (#129743)

    Why would the cardiologist be there if the patient's life isn't in danger? Seems like the study should break into two groups. One for patients that require a cardiac intervention (just made that up) and one that doesn't. But i didn't read the paper, so..

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:10PM (#129793)

      ...when the relevant specialists were unavailable

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday December 29 2014, @02:44AM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @02:44AM (#129844)

        The abstract doesn't actually mention cardiologists at all. It just states that people are more likely to die on the weekend when admitted to the ER. Looks like it costs money to read the actual article : /

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 29 2014, @10:10AM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday December 29 2014, @10:10AM (#129909) Homepage

      Why would the cardiologist be there if the patient's life isn't in danger?

      I don't get your meaning. Why wouldn't they be there? If by "there" you meant "at the patient's bedside," then it might make sense - by circular reasoning you're more likely to survive if you don't see a cardiologist because you're less likely to see a cardiologist if you don't need one - but the study looked at whether cardiologists were present/absent from the hospital.

      And it looked at "patients that were admitted to a hospital with a serious heart condition: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiac arrest" which sounds like they'd all fall under "requiring a cardiac intervention."

      Then you'd need to look at how and why patients get admitted in the first place - maybe hospitals get to re-route incoming heart emergencies to other hospitals if their cardiologists are away (I have no idea).

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday December 29 2014, @02:20PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @02:20PM (#129952)

        I finally read TFA and it said that when the cardiologists went to conventions and distant meetings the likelihood of survival went up. It is certainly interesting that a patient with cardiac arrest would live longer without a specialist present. I'd enjoy reading the actual research article if it was free.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:17AM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:17AM (#130163) Homepage

          It is certainly interesting that a patient with cardiac arrest would live longer without a specialist present.

          Ah, but that's the thing - that didn't necessarily happen. You have to consider all the knock-on effects of a cardiology away day - patients not being admitted precisely because the cardios are away, patients not being scheduled for surgery which might end in a cardiac event, etc, etc.

          There was one like this a few months back about the NHS - that you were more likely to die if you were having surgery on a Friday. But - or so someone said - it was mostly because surgeons tend to schedule the trickier ops for the end of the week for (I think) staffing reasons.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday December 29 2014, @03:20PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @03:20PM (#129969)

        Then you'd need to look at how and why patients get admitted in the first place

        Also don't overlook that you don't admit dead people.

        I know of three individuals who had bypasses. One (former owner of my house, a couple years after we bought it from her) died on the table. The other two got quite a few extra years and one's still kicking like a decade later. So with an admission and immediate bypass operation, 1/3 anecdotal death rate WRT that specific hospital admission. On the other hand, if the other two didn't get the operation, they'd likely have died relatively soon but after admission, so they would not get admitted.

        Its a classic example of screwed up metric design. If you want a low death rate in the hospital, simply stop treating people requiring bypasses, and then they'll die outside the hospital not inside the hospital, and the metric will show the hospital is a real "winner".

        PROBABLY what study designers wanted to gather was something like "age at death due to cardiac related illness" and then group by date of death based on "docs here" vs "doc is far away on vacation". Unless its just agitprop or clickbait or manufactured PR with a predetermined conclusion.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:41PM (#129748)

    I'd rather (recover fully or die) than survive as a vegetable.

    • (Score: 1) by dmewhort on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:57PM

      by dmewhort (4200) on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:57PM (#129751)

      Therein lies the issue, perhaps. As an utterly made up example, if deaths go up by 10% from 120 in 1000 to 132 in 1000 but none or minimal impact to overall personal function goes from 500 in 1000 to 700 in 1000 I would argue it is worth it. Not if you are one of the 12 though.

    • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:10PM

      by SlimmPickens (1056) on Sunday December 28 2014, @10:10PM (#129794)

      I reckon vegetable is better than death. It won't be very nice for your family but you presumably won't mind.

      At least if you're a vegetable, there's a chance, however slim, that some future technology can give some portion of your life back.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @10:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @10:41AM (#129916)

        I'd rather have my rotting dead corpse cryo preserved. It doesn't have any chance of working either but sure sounds cooler. No pun intended.

        On a more serious note that's how most people won't rank those two options, it's just that's probably not the choice you're given.

        • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Monday December 29 2014, @08:08PM

          by SlimmPickens (1056) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:08PM (#130018)

          There's no coming back from rotting. Once all those proteins and what-not that contain the settings for your neurons decompose, you're finished. You're probably better off frozen than vegetative though.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:18PM (#129788)

    Color me surprised.

  • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday December 29 2014, @02:34AM

    by anubi (2828) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:34AM (#129838) Journal

    that killed the patient...

    Rather its the shock when he sees the bill!

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 1) by typhoon on Monday December 29 2014, @10:02PM

    by typhoon (1283) on Monday December 29 2014, @10:02PM (#130053)

    About three months ago I had a serious cardiac event and I know for certain that the intervention of the specialists greatly improved my health outcome. In my case I experienced a heart attack due to myocarditis. Had the specialists not been there I would have been treated for a typical heart attack, and not for the myocarditis; which would have added risk to my health the longer it wasn't properly diagnosed.

    I know that one personal story compared to a specific case study is all but irrelevant, but something sounds very untrue in the article. Reading the source paper would be very interesting.

    I also cannot understand why the tone of the article is implying that specialists do more harm that good. Perhaps to chase clicks.