• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Doctors Hate Science

paximperium said:
What if they are not overworked?
Some of the docs could easily see 20 patients a day but a couple are only capable of 16 but are really really good with the families and elderly while a rare few could see up to 30.

Why should the most productive docs see more patients?
Do you fire the slower docs who are very good with their patients?
Who decides how many patients a doc must see?
Click to expand...

exactly. As I mentioned, it is a can of worms the health boards often will not dare dive into. If they try to set a "minimum" number to be seen, then they are asking for an "overworked" argument if anything goes wrong with patient care. Then who is to blame for the "overworked" doc...well the big bad board who set the guideline. Sounds ridiculous, but it is true...it happens.

As well, you have to look at the fact that in many rural areas, doctors are at a premium.

It is easy to say "well just hire more doctors" but the areas I am talking about can barely keep the few docs they have. Many docs, fine docs, will as a result, work longer hours, seeing more patients than they would like, because they are taught - patients first.

Some docs, unfortunately, will realize all to well their worth, and the demand for their services, and will realize that they can do as they wish, with respect to # patients seen, because the boards would rather except this, then do without any physician at all, and the wrath of the community as a result....what happens, is the wait list to see the doc, in that case, is several WEEKS long.

TAM:)
 
paximperium said:
What if they are not overworked?
Some of the docs could easily see 20 patients a day but a couple are only capable of 16 but are really really good with the families and elderly while a rare few could see up to 30.

Why should the most productive docs see more patients?
Click to expand...

Because their salaries would be increased at their next performance appraisal.

Do you fire the slower docs who are very good with their patients?
Click to expand...

Not if they are meeting the patient throughput they agreed to.

Who decides how many patients a doc must see?
Click to expand...

The doctor's manager.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Perhaps the employer could offer physicians a higher salary, better holidays, etc. to work in less glamorous regions/specialties?

E.g., the civil service in the UK has "London pay" to compensate employees who work in the capital for their increased cost of living compared to other regions of the UK.
Click to expand...

I agree, and many of these things are offered, but this is often only enough to keep someone there for a year or two. As well, these incentives are not always what they seem.

For instance, you get holiday time, yes, but what if when you go to take your holidays, they cannot find a locum to replace you? If you are one of two doctors in that region, do you go on your 2 week vacation, and leave your colleague on 24/7 call for 2 weeks?

What about that financial incentive? Lots of good it will do you when you live in the middle of freaking nowhere, with nothing to spend it on.

I have lived in areas where the nearest Coffee shop was 150 miles away, the nearest Walmart the same.

Incentives help, but they are not even close to a cure all.

TAM:)
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Because their salaries would be increased at their next performance appraisal.



Not if they are meeting the patient throughput they agreed to.



The doctor's manager.
Click to expand...

In Canada, there is no "doctor manager". There is an executive that runs a health care board. There is a hospital CEO who runs the entire hospital.

Canada, as a nation, has been battling with this for decades, and still has not come to a consensus.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
<snip>

Some docs, unfortunately, will realize all to well their worth, and the demand for their services, and will realize that they can do as they wish, with respect to # patients seen, because the boards would rather except this, then do without any physician at all, and the wrath of the community as a result....what happens, is the wait list to see the doc, in that case, is several WEEKS long.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

We had a similar problem with coal miners in the UK.

It did not end well for the miners.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
We had a similar problem with coal miners in the UK.

It did not end well for the miners.
Click to expand...

yes, and a closed coal mine will wreak havoc with the local community, but what does a coal mining company care?

It is different when you are dealing with a govt institution (the hospital) and when you are dealing with PEOPLES LIVES, and who will heal/help/save them.

TRUST ME.

TAM:)
 
kellyb said:
You're right. It was the response Ivor recieved for answering "yes" and presenting evidence.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. It is my impression that Ivor isn't any better at listening than you.

Linda
 
T.A.M. said:
yes, and a closed coal mine will wreak havoc with the local community, but what does a coal mining company care?

It is different when you are dealing with a govt institution (the hospital) and when you are dealing with PEOPLES LIVES, and who will heal/help/save them.

TRUST ME.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

In this case the government just pays whatever price to a few locum doctors to provide a basic service until those striking have been softened up and the public hate them for letting baby Charley die of a chest infection.
 
kellyb said:
Well you're a poopyhead.
HA! Take THAT!
Click to expand...

Well, there has been some interesting and useful information presented in this thread from people who have knowledge and experience in the area in question. It would be a shame to squander the opportunity.

Linda
 
No comment.
Ivor the Engineer said:
In this case the government just pays whatever price to a few locum doctors to provide a basic service until those striking have been softened up and the public hate them for letting baby Charley die of a chest infection.
Click to expand...
I just felt like quoting Ivor's own compassionate words.
 
kellyb said:
Can you not see how it would appear that MDs in this thread are in denial about the fact that physicians respond to financial incentives?
....
Click to expand...
To reinforce what Linda said, this is false.

Health care providers are motivated by a mix of incentives, and individual billing practice ethics vary as they do in any other profession, was the answer I gave and read.
 
kellyb said:
You're right. It was the response Ivor recieved for answering "yes" and presenting evidence.
Click to expand...
No, it was not. It was the response to Ivor drawing a conclusion based on a very narrow interpretation of a study on a single practice.
 
fls said:
Has anyone here ever participated in a doctor's strike?

Linda
Click to expand...
I've never even participated in a nurse's strike. Half my career we were "professionals" and striking was unprofessional, and by the time real unions moved into the nursing profession, I was in non-contract positions.
 
Doctor's Strikes are not very useful. The govt realizes that our ethics bind us to provide Emergency services even when on strike (like nurses) which renders our bargaining power almost useless. With Essential/Emergency Services provided for, the govt can wait out any group of health care providers.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom