Little sense
There is an upsurge of complaints against hospitals of late. Although some lack logic, it is the staff that were allegedly involved that usually bear the brunt of internal investigations. There are many patients and their families, that confuse hospitals with hotels.
Let me illustrate a case where an asthmatic presented to the Emergency Department in acute bronchospasm. After several rounds of nebulised medications and a dose of steriods, she recovered with the reversal of bronchospasm. Unfortunately, because of the haze, she has requested to stay in hospital despite being told that she was fit to go home. However, as the bed situation was extremely tight, the admitting officer could not fulfil her request. She was advised to use regular nebulisers and discharged on a tapering dose of steriods. She was also asked to wear a face mask when outdoors.
She then proceeded to ask for a referral letter to a nearby private hospital for which the admitting officer obliged. She was then discharged from the hospital.
Several days later, a complaint went to the Director of the hospital demanding that the hospital bear the charges of the private admission. It was claimed that the hospital had refused to admit the patient but instead referred her to the private hospital.
On the day of the alleged event, there was a mutual understanding between the patient and the admitting officer, that the arrangement was in the best interest of the patient. Moreover, due to the lack of beds, waiting in the Emergency Department for hours may not be in the best interest of the patient.
The argument is that the admiting officer has a prerrogative of deciding which patients need admission NOT the patient. There was a follow up plan and advice to the patient should her condition worsen. On top of that, the request for a referral letter to a private institution was at the request of the patient NOT the decision of the admitting officer.
To return now and allege that the officer refused to admit the patient but was instead referred to another hospital is defamatory and spiced with malicious intent.
It is only hoped that the administrative officials defend the actions of the admitting officer and not succumb to pressures of an impending litigation. This is tantamount to blackmail.
Let me illustrate a case where an asthmatic presented to the Emergency Department in acute bronchospasm. After several rounds of nebulised medications and a dose of steriods, she recovered with the reversal of bronchospasm. Unfortunately, because of the haze, she has requested to stay in hospital despite being told that she was fit to go home. However, as the bed situation was extremely tight, the admitting officer could not fulfil her request. She was advised to use regular nebulisers and discharged on a tapering dose of steriods. She was also asked to wear a face mask when outdoors.
She then proceeded to ask for a referral letter to a nearby private hospital for which the admitting officer obliged. She was then discharged from the hospital.
Several days later, a complaint went to the Director of the hospital demanding that the hospital bear the charges of the private admission. It was claimed that the hospital had refused to admit the patient but instead referred her to the private hospital.
On the day of the alleged event, there was a mutual understanding between the patient and the admitting officer, that the arrangement was in the best interest of the patient. Moreover, due to the lack of beds, waiting in the Emergency Department for hours may not be in the best interest of the patient.
The argument is that the admiting officer has a prerrogative of deciding which patients need admission NOT the patient. There was a follow up plan and advice to the patient should her condition worsen. On top of that, the request for a referral letter to a private institution was at the request of the patient NOT the decision of the admitting officer.
To return now and allege that the officer refused to admit the patient but was instead referred to another hospital is defamatory and spiced with malicious intent.
It is only hoped that the administrative officials defend the actions of the admitting officer and not succumb to pressures of an impending litigation. This is tantamount to blackmail.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home