[userinanother]

Hospitals in the USA are not super concerned about patient outcomes at the administrative level. Everyone just wants to be middle of the road “good enough” to not get sued for negligence. There isn’t really any incentive for doing better than that and it costs a lot to be better

[snitty]

Hospitals in the US are actually pretty concerned with hospital acquired infections. For the sole reason that medicare/medicaid and insurance typically don't cover costs associated with them. So the hospital itself is on the hook for diagnosis, treatment, and any associated costs.

[rubyfan]

Does this create a moral hazard to not diagnose?

[haldujai]

Not really because moral hazard occurs when you’re protected from consequences. Missing an early nosocomial infection means you’re now on the hook for very long admissions with expensive treatments and interventions.

Personal experience in US academia also suggests not, far more concern for early diagnosis of infection and IPAC than I saw practicing in Canada.

[JoshTko]

Yes

[giantg2]

"Hospitals in the US are actually pretty concerned with hospital acquired infections."

Some more than others.

[Scoundreller]

USA might be best in the world for this, as they look at 30 day réadmission and 30 day post-discharge mortality for various conditions.

Of course these stats have their own gameability, but good luck getting this level of data elsewhere.

[londons_explore]

The goal wouldn't even be to be better - it would be to measure how much benefit could be had with perfect biological isolation, so that we could decide where on the cost/effort/benefit scale to put our hospitals.