Never 27 Law Watch

[Ronald Gross]

HMMMMMM......Lets see:

- Good for patient care - can't think of a reason.

- Bad for patient care - it actually stops people from providing patient care because folks need that time to comply with the regulatory paperwork, reporting, and just trying to figure out how to define an "adverse event".  Are know complications adverse events?  Seems that the non-medical bureaucrats and yes, personal injury lawyers think so.  

- Bad for patient care - diverting money from actual health care issues (such as trauma systems funding and health insurance for the indigent) to regulatory agencies and personnel who need to justify their existence and salaries by harassing healthcare givers with investigations of "adverse events".

So Ken, some of our colleagues might suggest that I need an attitude adjustment.  What do you think?

Ron 
>>> <KMATTOX at aol.com> 3/1/2007 10:12 AM >>>
Tom:  I would be happy to give you my reaction, but this list has a  lot of 
nurses and trauma directors who read.   I would ask each person  to list ONE 
reason what each might think the Law is BAD for patient care and why  the law 
might be GOOD for patient care.   
 
The original question was put to us by a nurse in California
 
k
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/

Confidentiality Notice

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary information which is legally privileged.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please promptly contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.