> It would seem that whichever approach is taken to reduce
> waiting times it
> seems to work, especially if you look at 'evidence'
> (published papers). It
> is also known that patients in trials do better than average whichever
> treatment allocated.
Indeed. Called the Hawthorne effect (apologies if you already knew that, but
it had been niggling at me for a few days, so I thought I'd post it so
nobody else in my situation would have to go to the bother of looking it
up).
In something that looks at patient waits, over and above this there is the
fact that see and treat has been trailed only by people who are interested
in it. I would guess that those involved put in more time and effort for the
first year or so of the trial than they were putting in before- without
necessarily realising.
I would guess that a fair number of the departments using see and treat
would have consultants with an interest in the minors side. Conversely,
departments with consultants with more of an interest in critically ill
patients and less in minors might achieve better results by the 'Appropriate
Care' model.
Matt Dunn
Warwick
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.
|