Then you agree with the article that "the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections is clear".
Uhh... That's kind of a huge problem.
Then you agree with the article that "the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections is clear".
Uhh... That's kind of a huge problem.
I stand by my assertion that nobody is trying to "hide" the "superbug" problem.
The human tendency to not self-report failures is a thing. But it's not some kind of biohazard conspiracy.
And one more thing about the death certificates...
> In a statement emailed to Reuters, Frieden said:
> "While death certificates provide helpful
> information, the unfortunate reality is that they
> don't provide in-depth clinical information."
I'm guessing that Frieden, the boss of the whole CDC, went on to say something like: "But it makes sense, because death certificates are primarily legal records. The clinical information lives in medical records." OR, OR, something more accurate. That's why he gets the big bucks. :)But the article sure makes it sound like hospitals are hiding MRSA-related deaths, since MRSA infections are often "hospital acquired". And we all agree that hospitals would have an incentive to hide these numbers.
And the apparent under-reporting seems to indicate that this is in fact what's going on. This sounds like a problem! Thanks a lot, dishonest hospitals!
> There’s also a powerful incentive not to mention a hospital-acquired infection: Counting deaths is tantamount to documenting your own failures. By acknowledging such infections, hospitals and medical professionals risk potentially costly legal liability, loss of insurance reimbursements and public-relations damage.