|
|
|
|
|
by mankyd
1054 days ago
|
|
> Not sure if they accounted for delayed surgeries in the study. That's sort of what I am wondering. Perhaps it just delays the inevitable - the patient is gravely ill is is going to die if they don't perform _potentially_ life-saving surgery. The surgery, is of course risky. The conference delays the surgery, so the patient's surgery or other high risk procedures are delayed. This gives the patient a few more days of being ill, but doesn't probabilistically change the outcome of actually undergoing the procedure. |
|
My understanding from listening to the author’s podcast, is that this is the proposed mechanism. There is a percentage of patients who were going to get better on their own anyway. But if they receive urgent care, it may cause harm.
The conclusion seems to be that there is a measurable percentage of patients who got surgery but didn’t need it and thus suffered greater harm than if they had been left alone. Because heart attacks are so critical, medical staff errs on the side of action instead of waiting. This seems reasonable, but may in fact be bad.
it’s a good podcast: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-happens-to-patients-wh...