Quote:
Originally Posted by thelegges
I lost count long time ago, on how many times I was notified days or weeks later, that I was exposed, something infectious.
Patients don’t come with bar codes, and sometimes aren’t diagnosed with issues for days. Nothing unusual to be notified the patient you did a procedure 8 days ago Has just been diagnosed with TB.
Then you get the “We understand TB precautions were not used during this procedure, and you will need to be tested.” 40 year’s of being exposed to pretty much anything you can think of, gives you a different perspective on reality of working in healthcare. Sometimes the wheels on the bus are not present until it’s too late.
Your idea only works if every patient was tested for any possible issue, then wait for days or weeks for results before being admitted.
Sir I am sorry you are in CHF, trauma from accident, internal bleeding, but we need to make sure you don’t have anything infectious before you can come thru our doors. So in your ideal hospital, money would be saved, but lives would definitely be lost.
|
I appreciate your response, and your years of first hand experience in the trenches. You know more about this than I, obviously. I see your point, that in critical emergency situations, and in triage, patients have to be treated without the benefit of knowing if they are infectious or not. But isn't your scenario similar to riding a bus, subway or going to an indoor concert. I'm not suggesting that separating infectious from non-infectious care will provide total isolation, but doesn't it make sense that once known, outside of the realm of emergent critical care, such separation would serve to reduce cross infection from inside the facility?