Tag: Health Care
Why Doctors Hate Their Computers
Nobody writes about health care practice from the inside out like Atul Gawande, here focusing on an increasingly important part of clinical work: information technology.
A 2016 study found that physicians spent about two hours doing computer work for every hour spent face to face with a patient–whatever the brand of medical software. In the examination room, physicians devoted half of their patient time facing the screen to do electronic tasks. And these tasks were spilling over after hours. The University of Wisconsin found that the average workday for its family physicians had grown to eleven and a half hours. The result has been epidemic levels of burnout among clinicians. Forty per cent screen positive for depression, and seven per cent report suicidal thinking–almost double the rate of the general working population.
Something’s gone terribly wrong. Doctors are among the most technology-avid people in society; computerization has simplified tasks in many industries. Yet somehow we’ve reached a point where people in the medical profession actively, viscerally, volubly hate their computers.
It’s not just the workload, but also what Gawande calls “the Revenge of the Ancillaries” – designing software for collaboration between different health care professionals, from surgeons to administrators, all of whom have competing stakes and preferences in how a product is used and designed, what information it offers and what it demands. And most medical software doesn’t handle these competing demands very well.
That 1/3 isn’t the total chance to get pregnant, its PER CYCLE which is per month. Women in their late 30s have a 90% chance of getting pregnant within two years of trying. Learn some math.
I know it’s PER CYCLE, my dear. What I was saying is that IVF isn’t as perfectly successful as people seem to think it is. The results do not automatically get better after repeated cycles, particularly when you’re older.
http://www.smartfertilitychoices.com/ivf-success-rates/
Did you see the nice letters spelling out certain words in this picture above? You know, the ones saying, “ended up with a baby after a year of IVF treatment.” Multiple cycles does NOT guarantee a higher success rate.
You are also not calculating the side effects of what IVF does to women when you spout off statements like “90% chance of getting pregnant within two years of trying.” Not true. There are no such stats saying that. Please come at with me with an actual link instead of pretending that I can’t do math.
Also, Megs turns 37 next month. IVF success is always more difficult after 35.
Learn to deal with it.
The BRF will NEVER admit that Megho got pregnant through IVF & no way in hell will they admit if they did surrogacy.
They can’t use
surrogacy because in the UK the child(ren) would not legally belong to Megs. (http://duchessofostergotlands.tumblr.com/post/175846047225/theoretically-if-a-royal-lady-chose-to-use-a)
They’re probably not
going to adopt, so that basically leaves IVF.
I really wish people
would stop talking about IVF as if it 100% guarantees a baby. Here are some
stats from the US:
So that’s basically
a 1 in 3 chance likelihood that given Meg’s age, a baby would result from IVF.
Live birth is different from a conception rate. Conception rate is usually
higher than the live birth rate. But just because you conceive through IVF does
NOT mean you will be able to carry that fetus to term.
Here are some stats
from the UK:
Again, you’ll notice
that IVF does not even result in a baby more than half the time. The UK stats
are even lower than the ones from the US. Even regardless of the statistical
difference between the US and the UK, each facility will have it’s own success
rates measured in conception and live birth rates. But no facility has a 100%
live birth rate. That’s just unheard of.
Poor lose doctors as wealthy gain them, new figures reveal
Fewer GPs are choosing to work in poorer areas but more are joining surgeries that look after wealthier populations, new official figures reveal.
The exodus, uncovered by Labour MP Frank Field, is exacerbating the existing “under-doctoring” of deprived populations – the lack of family doctors in places where poorer people live.
Experts said the widening divide between rich and poor areas in GP numbers – which is one of England’s starkest health inequalities – would force the least well-off to wait longer for an appointment, even though they are generally sicker and die earlier than the rest of the population.
“A decade ago the country was beginning to make some serious inroads into the under-doctoring of the poorest areas. What these grim figures show is that in recent years that progress has not only stalled, but actually gone into reverse,” Field told the Observer.
“The most worrying trend here is the number of GPs ceasing to serve people towards the bottom of the pile, while at the same time people in the wealthiest areas have benefited from an even better service. Vulnerable people are having to suffer in silence without being able to see a GP.
“Here’s another example of everything going in the wrong direction if our goal is to equalise health opportunities and outcomes. It is a new appalling face of inequality in modern Britain.”
There were 8,207 GPs working in areas containing the most deprived quintile of the population in England in 2008. But by last year that number had fallen to 7,696 – a drop of 511 – according to the response to a written parliamentary question Field asked recently.
But over the same decade the number of family doctors working in the most prosperous fifth of the population increased from 4,058 to 4,192 – a rise of 134, public health minister Steve Brine told Field.
Fuck keeping affluent people alive, help us instead
This is similar to the US.
House of Brat 