Paul Galloway <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I knew that obscure audit would come in useful.
Impressed!
>
>Correlated nos of patients seen with hours of sunlight from local met office
>data. No direct correlation, coeffecient .6 or something.
>
>But significant trend at start of change in weather.
>i.e. if the weather was lousy for 10 days plus, and we got a few days of sun
>the numbers dropped back for about 3 days. Similarly at change of good spell
>to bad a temporary increase.
>
>Only did 3 months data though, so so many confounding factors that it was a
>complete waste of time :-)
Just because something doesn't produce a sensible answer (or even any
answer) does not make it a complete waste of time.
I mean, nobody knows the answer to life, but does that make it a waste
of time?
>
>EBM my arse. We all *know* that the punters are especially troublesome if
>the weather's crap. Or is it my SAD playing up ? :-)
But wasn't Ahmad saying the opposite - he had more patients when the sun
shone?
Is this telling us about the patients or the doctor?
Now, what about full moons?
Is it me or do the nutters (sorry, mentally-health-challenged) all
present when there's a full moon?
--
Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|