- ‘Bag of Pills’: Is It Necessary? Fewer medications is an achievable goal
- Now There’s Proof: Docs Who Get Company Cash Tend to Prescribe More Brand-Name Meds
- Let’s involve Connecticut patients in reducing medical errors
- Want to know about medical mistakes? Talk to the parents.
- Number of hospital accidents not getting any better
Tag Archives: doctor
by Pat Anson on February 11, 2012 – Two national surveys of doctors in the U.S. have uncovered shocking admissions that many physicians lie to their patients, withhold information about their medical mistakes, fail to disclose their financial relationships with … Continue reading
To head off medical conflicts of interest, the Obama administration is poised to require drug companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment. Many researchers have found evidence that such payments can … Continue reading
Buried deep in a federal database is Practitioner No. 222117, perhaps the most frequently disciplined doctor in America. This doctor has been accused of violating drug laws, prescribing unauthorized medications, providing substandard care and obtaining licenses through fraud. From 2002 … Continue reading
More and more physicians are investing in their own imaging equipment. But when a doctor stands to make money on each MRI he or she orders, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that they might be inclined … Continue reading
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn’t work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren’t enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn’t work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren’t enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed. Continue reading
For years, outside critics have lashed out at the board, saying it is too lenient with doctors, and has allowed some physicians to keep their licenses after having committed egregious violations.
Critics have been equally harsh toward the Department of Public Health’s investigatory and legal staff, which looks into claims against doctors, hands often-truncated findings to the board and recommends
Patient advocates believe the board and DPH are failing to protect the public against the few bad apples who abuse their medical privileges.
Board members themselves — past and present — told Greenwich Time they believe the system is flawed. Continue reading
The National Press Club discussion of patient safety can only lead to better coverage of the problems of medical error/adverse events. Please take the time to watch this program Dr. Chuck Denham and Actor Dennis Quaid Remarks on Medical Errors … Continue reading
This is just a great article that addresses one of our increasing concerns – inappropriate care and over use. I am much more suspicious than the journalists. I love the way doctors say they over prescribe because they are afraid … Continue reading
“How can this be? You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing?” Continue reading
• An unlicensed anesthesiologist;
• single-use suture sets and other supplies that were resealed after they were opened, and had blood and/or other human fluids on them;
• severe rust in the interior of a machine used to sterilize surgical equipment;
• a garbage container in a recovery room full of food, garbage and other surgical waste including syringes;
• animal droppings on equipment;
• dust, debris and blood on the floor and equipment;
• procedures conducted without nurses present;
• no effective program to control the distribution of drugs or manage infection control; and
• failure to properly maintain medical records and privacy on patients. Continue reading