|
|
|
|
|
by DanBC
3214 days ago
|
|
There's a clue in the name - accident and emergency - that these departments handle urgent but non life threatening care too. Really, it's a fucking stupid question. Of course Europe's socialised medicine will treat broken arms. If the question is about the time taken to treat these problems: England is going to through a bit of a scandal at the moment about missed waiting time limits in A&E departments. The maximum time from arriving at A&E through to either being treated and discharged, or admitted into the hospital for further treatment, is 4 hours. And that time limit must happen for 95% of patients. And we're currently worried because at the moment it's over 90% (but less than 95%) of patients get treated and discharged or admitted to hospital within 4 hours. We have the advantage of free or low cost primary care, so most people don't need to leave minor problems to fester until it's turned into a severe problem. |
|
Seriously, WTF? Where did I ever say broken arms don't get treated? Are you seeing a dumb American in my post because that's what you want to see?
The only thing I even wonder is where the appropriate place to go to get it treated would be. In the US, you can go to an emergency department or an urgent care facility. The urgent care facility is the most appropriate place: you will get seen promptly and they are equipped to handle it, and it will cost less than an ER visit (even after insurance, typically). You will get seen in the ER, but not quickly, and you will probably pay more.