--- Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for all the feedback (and maths!) guys. Yes,
> my argument is really
> just about the 48-hour cut off. And I was surprised
> that someone said they
> rarely get delayed trauma.
That was me! Having said it of course saw a 6 day old
HI over the weekend, but all it required was to tell
the patient that bruising to the scalp could still be
tender after 6 days - it hurt when she brushed her
hair! Hardly needed great skill to sort out! :-)
> Maybe it's the sort of
> practice we have down
> here, but just today within a few hours I saw two
> delayed facial fractures
> which needed x-rays and max-fax referral, a delayed
> burn and a delayed ankle
> injury. I think our delayed presenters must be in
> double figures each day.
Very differnt from my workload for sure!
> OK, I don't have evidence as to how much of this is
> ending up in local GPs'
> surgeries, but I have very strong suspicions that
> very little does!
>
Again that may be a local phenomena! I'm sure quite a
lot ends up with ours, particularly from the more far
flung parts of the empire! 60 mile round trip acts as
quite a good limiter on attendances!
I agree the 48 hour cutoff is an arbitrary figure, but
you are wrong to say that this sort of idea springs
entirely from managers and academics. I heard Ian
Stewart from Plymouth espouse just such a plan at a
conference a couple of years ago (although 72 hours
was his choice IIRC) and you couldn't describe him as
either a manager or an armchair academic!
Cheers Fred.
|