> Lets say the department is a small one and
> has a single
> treatment stream (one doctor on duty). Say 30 people were in the queue
> before you, and you took 20 minutes of department time. That means 30
> patients waited 20 minutes longer EACH to be seen, so he cost
> the other
> patients 20x30 = 600 minutes (or 10 hours) in total.
Sort of agree with your point re ethics of the situation. Disagree with the
illustration. This was a fairly minor disorder and would probably take about
average time to be dealt with if not less. If there were 30 patients waiting
who would each take 20 minutes of a doctor's time, the wait would be 10
hours (and frankly, 30 patients waiting in a single doc department unless
it's minors only is unsafe). So you save 10 hours for one patient and cause
a total 10 hour wait for the others. All cancels out. Then we get down to
the debate of justice vs equity for allocation of resources. Interestingly,
if you take a strict utilitarian view, a doctor would probably need less
time taking a history and explaining than the average patient (say 15 minute
consultation against 20 minute average), so seeing them first would save
them 10 hours against a 7.5 hour combined wait for the others- your way of
doing things wastes a total of 2 and a half hours of patient time. How do
you justify that? (Equally, this is a reason for fast tracking the 'easy
minors'- or for that matter putting patients with complex problems or
communication difficulties to the back of the queue)
Matt Dunn
This email has been scanned for viruses by NAI AVD however we are unable to
accept responsibility for any damage caused by the contents.
The opinions expressed in this email represent the views of the sender, not
South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust unless explicitly stated.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender.
|