Blogger Melissa Clarkson offers a wryly humorous take on a goal established by the CMS Partnership for Patients, to reduce preventable harm by 40% between 2010 and 2014. She asks:
I was not aware that harm comes as a mix of acceptable harm and unacceptable harm and the concern is getting rid of the unacceptable portion.
But if hospitals are striving for such a goal, I simply ask that they fully explain this to patients and families. And to help, I would like to provide some ideas for facilitating this communication.
Here are some of the graphics she proposes for those hospitals who wish to be fully transparent.
For a hospital welcome sign:
For a marketing campaign:
For the front lobby:
More seriously, and perhaps not coincidentally, according to this Modern Healthcare article:
The Leapfrog Group has released the second round of its bi-annual hospital safety scores, which show “sluggish” improvement in patient safety among the nation's hospitals.
I was not aware that harm comes as a mix of acceptable harm and unacceptable harm and the concern is getting rid of the unacceptable portion.
But if hospitals are striving for such a goal, I simply ask that they fully explain this to patients and families. And to help, I would like to provide some ideas for facilitating this communication.
Here are some of the graphics she proposes for those hospitals who wish to be fully transparent.
For a hospital welcome sign:
For a marketing campaign:
For the front lobby:
More seriously, and perhaps not coincidentally, according to this Modern Healthcare article:
The Leapfrog Group has released the second round of its bi-annual hospital safety scores, which show “sluggish” improvement in patient safety among the nation's hospitals.
4 comments:
Funny, thanks for sharing. It always surprises me how tough it is to propose a goal of "Zero" events to leaders. Definitely a place for physician leaders to advocate at goal setting time....!
Funny but not so funny! There sure is a lot of talk about this subject, but a touchy one amongst physician leaders. Why?
It's just disheartening. But thank God for those who are trying to make a difference, their efforts are noble and don't go unnoticed or appreciated.
Let's not forget the need to make a "business case" for patient safety. Newest entry: Press Ganey announcing, with a straight face, that a "serious harm" event hurts patient satisfaction. Which, of course, is linked to compensation by Medicare.
Of course, before you run out to call a Press Ganey patient safety consultant, a more thorough analysis is needed. For instance, if a patient is killed by an error, does the family still get a CAHPS survey? How serious is "serious" harm, anyway?
No reason to go too quickly. (sigh)
See my still relevant blog post from December, 2010: Why we still kill patients: "Invisibility, inertia and income." http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/12/06/why-we-still-kill-patients-invisibility-inertia-and-income/
One of your best items to date. I am passing this on for sure.
Post a Comment