<p>I was thinking - just one patient managed to close down one hospital’s ER department, and the entire hospital (if what I am hearing is correct) is almost half-empty.
This is a very expensive disease to treat in terms of healthcare availability for other, non-Ebola patients.</p>
<p>“CEOs and leaders who are accountable are just the opposite. They do not wait around for the expensive disaster, but implement preventive measures, and then peel back the measures in pieces, if they see that not all measures are required.”</p>
<p>If all accountable CEOs were as accountable as you say, HBS publishers would have a hard time locating material for their cases. It looks like there are no shortages… And I am not even talking about the huge messes as the BP disaster! That was a classic case of ignorance of safety. </p>
<p>You might eventually get your travel ban, and it will have a temporary placebo effect on the Street because it is what the Street wants, apparently. The Street is a bastion of rational thinking, isn’t it?</p>
<p>(Dang iPhone, makes me edit every post!)</p>
<p>The CNN medical reporter Elizabeth Cohen was talking yesterday about the financial implications for this hospital. Not only could the hospital close but this hospital is 17% of it’s parent corporation’s revenue which affects other hospitals. </p>
<p>The nurses at the hospital are in isolation. I suppose the doctors are also. The nurses are on paid leave. The doctors are self-employed for the most part. No income for them but they are still likely paying their office staff. The economic hits from just one imported case of Ebola will be calculated one day and it will be shocking.</p>
<p>Thanks, TatinG, I have thought about that also, and wonder if it has factored into the CDC protocol for the future. In hindsight, an ebola patient should never have been treated at a community hospital like that, both for the economic reasons that impact not just the hospital, but the entire community’s access to medical care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe people who think others, such as the flight attendants, are being overly cautious about exposure, can take over the attendents’ jobs for a while? If there is nothing to see here, then those people would not mind doing the jobs of those who think there is too much of a risk. </p>
<p>Texas Health Presbyterian is a private hospital and it seems that they did wait around for a disaster to happen and respond in a reactionary rather than a proactive way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The current level of loss in the two weeks would boggle the mind of most. But because people are still shopping and going out in Dallas then all must be fine in many people’s eyes. </p>
<p>The height of this ignorance is a study in itself and indicates that college is not doing much good for many in terms of understanding wider economic implications.</p>
<p>We are truly a dumb-downed society. </p>
<p>Can you elaborate on your comment please, saintfan?</p>
<p>^^ Bay, for example, their ebola training consisted of an optional seminar. No drilling on PPE, which is critical. Hardly the most rigorous preparation. </p>
<p>N.B. – I am not advocating a lawsuit. Like Fang, I am advocating full and frank disclosure by the hospital so that other hospitals know what mistakes to avoid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A classic example of not understanding economics and also is an example of using sound bites, which try to sound smart, yet miss the entire reality of a situation. I guess just saying it is not indicative of the fundamentals of an argument.</p>
<p>In terms of economics, a growing part of hospital revenue is preventative care and proactive measures. Hospitals that are investing in preventative care services are actually a great investment.</p>
<p>I guess it is missed by some that colonoscopies, mammograms, yearly check ups etc. are procedures done trying to find an anomaly early BEFORE it becomes and actual problem! And those tests, as they get better at predictability, and other preventive measures account for a larger and larger share of hospital revenue each year.</p>
<p>Therefore, not in the least, are hospitals just waiting around for something bad to happen. They are very much in the business of trying to limit and prevent disease. Maybe the CDC could learn a thing or two about leading and preventing rather than just being reactive. </p>
<p>Again, hospitals that are going heavy in preventive measures are great investments. Some hospital groups give year over year returns in excess of 15%. </p>
<p>Weird too that the hospital being private has anything to do with anything. Again, another strange qualifier.</p>
<p>Perhaps the hospital should have done that, I don’t know about standard procedure in that area. I can’t help commenting though about the irony that some are both claiming the hospital under-reacted and peoples reactions are hysterical in the same breath. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you have proof that all public hospitals would have done better in training and were ready to accept an ebola patient? And you have proof that all public hospitals had the PPE stuff on hand as well?</p>
<p>Or would the case not be that outside of the dedicated hospitals with isolation units that this problem would have occurred similar in just about any hospital, public or private, but this just happens to have happened first in a private hospital?</p>
<p>Well, guess what, we know the answer:</p>
<p>We know that similar would have happened in a public hospital because the protocols sent out by the CDC to all hospitals were INADEQUATE, so any hospital following those would have had a similar outcome or worse. Hint -training in faulty procedures does not improve outcomes. </p>
<p>Plus, last I checked, the new CDC emergency response team will fly to ALL hospitals that get an Ebola patient, not only limited to private ones. Why send a team to public hospitals if they are fully-trained and ready?</p>
<p>This is low information scape-goating of a private hospital, as if that issue were or is not industry-wide, across both public and private hospitals.</p>
<p>EDIT: It is patently obvious that the only hospitals ready for this are the ones with dedicated, continuously-trained and continuous-staffed isolation units. The public has figured that out too. </p>
<p>I don’t see the inconsistency in saying that the hospital wasn’t prepared on the one hand, and that there has been overreaction by various entities on the other.</p>
<p>I don’t think all hospitals would have missed the Liberia connection which occurred in the beginning, but I absolutely believe that many if not most could very well have experienced many of the other difficulties which came later. My unscientific study of nursing forums and media reports tell me that nurses across the board are claiming their hospitals are no more ready, protocols were unclear, and equipment is no better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe it is because the same people who are saying that there is no major issue here and do not overact are part of the same group who were not prepared?</p>
<p>Maybe smart people take others less seriously when the others are saying this, “Hey, we messed up big-time, but trust us, we know what we are doing now.” Yeah…sure…is people’s reaction.</p>
<p>Said more succinctly, “If past is prologue…”</p>
<p>Im an RN, worked in ICU for years, no longer in the hospital setting, but do have many friends currently working in major east coast facilities. Based on practices when I did work in ICU, no not one hospital even major treatment centers would have been able to adequately handle Mr. Duncan. My SIL currently works in Medical ICU in a NYC area hospital, as of yesterday, her facility was doing a MAJOR scramble and overhaul of their facility. Not one HAZMAT gown would be available if he came in this past Wednesday at her facility. The supplies she said currently available the last day she worked this week consisted of exactly the same PPE the Texas hospital had available.</p>
<p>Now they are constructing a Biohazard tent, adjacent to hospital but not connected at all to the main building. </p>
<p>So the 4 named facilities are the only ones capable to handle at most (as per what I read) 11 infected patients nationwide. </p>
<p>I don’t think it is reasonable to place blame on any particular person or entity with the information we have now. The incident was the perfect storm. A disease that had never been randomly encountered in the history of America, a patient who inadvertently gave unclear information and presented with nothing but a fever, professional staff who had to make a call about treatment with very little to go on, a hospital whose procedures have not been shown to be outside the norm for this situation, and a governmental department which provided inadequate guidelines. </p>
<p>I think we should all be thankful that the outcome turned out to be as non-disastrous as it has thus far. </p>
<p>@Bay - I was just offering a quick response to the idea that private executives are always seeing signs on the horizon and making proactive business decisions that prevent major financial losses. I am not arguing that others do it better, just offering a current example of a private enterprise that did not take the preemptive course of action that would have best shielded the bottom line. Ebola was out there. Whatever the CDC said or didn’t say about protocols, the hospital seems to have had a systematic response readiness screw up (not a technical term) that is costing them a lot of money.
It looks like many other institutions might have had similar poor results with case #1 but it is just one example which demonstrates that private executives don’t always have perfect vision. It appears that hey made a financial decision, whether calculated or by default, that putting resources into readiness wasn’t a priority.</p>
<p>Actually he presented with abdominal pain AND fever, which was why they screened for appendicitis and other potential issues initially. I’m pretty sure no hospital in HI is ready with proper PPE gear in case we get a highly contagious person and really hope our hospitals will be able to ramp up before someone comes into our state that is highly infectious.</p>