RSS Feed This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 1:30 pm and is filed under FYI. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
 |
- At Other Sites
- Beam Me Up
- Book Review
- Breaking News
- CBO
- Discussion
- From the Trenches
- FYI
- Ground Control to Sen. Democrats
- Health Alert
- 2008 Election
- African AIDS
- Babies
- Bad Studies
- Book Reviews
- Bush Health Plan
- Diabetics
- Drugs
- Health Care Access
- Health Care Costs
- Health Reform
- HSAs
- International
- LAZIK Surgery
- Malpractice
- Media Advisory
- Medicaid
- Medical Economics
- Medical Tourism
- Mental Health
- Minimum Wage
- Portability
- Racial Disparities
- RAND Studies
- Safety
- Scary Forecasts
- SCHIP
- Seniors/Medicare
- Socialized Medicine
- Supply Side
- Telemedicine
- Transparency
- Uninsured
- Vet Care
- Vision Thing
- Workers Comp
- Hits & Misses
- Holiday
- In Memoriam
- In the News
- Interesting Videos
- Memorial Day
- New Videos
- NHS Update
- Notable and Quotable
- Obesity Update
- On Capitol Hill
- Personal Testimony
- Petition
- Plans
- Policy Update
- Question of the Week
- Quote of the Day
- Season's Greetings
- Song of the Season
- The People Speak Out
- Updates
Categories
Contributors
- Ron Bachman
- Michael Bond
- Jim Frogue
- John Goodman
- Linda Gorman
- Robert Graboyes
- John R. Graham
- Devon Herrick
- Regina Herzlinger
- June O'Neill
- Roy Ramthun
- Greg Scandlen
Recent Posts
- Maybe Sen. Bunning is Right about Unemployment Benefits
- The Mystery of Health Care Policy
- Insurance Regulators Push Back on White House Demagoguery
- Half of All Infections are Caused by Hospitals, Household Dust, and Kids are Snacking More
- White House Endorses High Deductible Health Insurance
- A Strange Way to Look at Health Economics
- Deadliest State for Bicyclists, One Less Cookie, and Is Sugar Safe?
- Why the Antitrust Exemption Matters
- A Pill Bottle that Won’t Take “No” for an Answer
- McDonald’s Controversial “Diet Friendly” Menu, Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb Diets, and Is Obesity Bad for the Economy?
Blogroll
Oct 21, 2009
This is Miller, writing in Forbes:
A simple five-step checklist intended to prevent catheter-related infections in Michigan hospital ICUs…includ[ed] washing hands with soap and cleaning a patient’s skin with antiseptic. But because researchers were planning to assess the results of implementing the checklist, their work met the strict definition of “research” and therefore required patients’ formal informed consent, the approval of institutional review boards, and other expensive and time-consuming red tape.
Because the researchers had not jumped through all of these hoops, the federal human research office actually stopped the study–in spite of the fact that the checklist was associated with a 66% reduction in infections throughout the state of Michigan, saving over 1,500 lives and $200 million in the first 18 months alone.
4 Responses to “Henry Miller: Monumental Callousness and Stupidity, if Not Outright Malfeasance”
RSS
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn
Facebook
Flickr
Helium
October 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Yet another horror story from the history of bureacracy.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
And an unsurprising horror story, considering this is health care bureaucracy.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
It’s amazing how institutional review boards become obstacles to quality improvement rather than promoting better patient care. There’s enough research to support the measures mentioned that implementing these common-sense protocols should not involve begging for permission from a review board. Indeed, not following them should be a breach of acceptable practice guidelines.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I’m not sure I understand. Doctors can’t use the checklist because they don’t have patients’ consent? That doesn’t even make sense.
Leave it to the federal government to make up a rule like that.