Omission of spinal precautions

[Aidey]

I have that one, or a similar one around somewhere.

 

[Arovetli]

On the state level or federal level? If it is the federal level, who do we talk to to get involved with that?

Mainly at the state level but is gaining ground nationally through the American Medical Association backing. However it is all bungled up with Obamacare.

here is an article, though it focuses more on the obamacare involvement...but part of the underlying push is to create protections for implementing changes based on research and a consensus of an established scientific advisory board.

http://www.amednews.com/article/20130415/government/130419963/1/

 

[Aidey]

Pass it along if you do, please.

Hauswald - A re-conceptualization of acute spinal care. I have the full text if you can't get it, but I'll need you e-mail address.

Also, Hauswald (Mark, MD, University of New Mexico) has a lot of published studies on the uselessness of "spinal immobilization". Look up his other stuff on the topic.

 

[Brandon O]

Hauswald - A re-conceptualization of acute spinal care. I have the full text if you can't get it, but I'll need you e-mail address.

Also, Hauswald (Mark, MD, University of New Mexico) has a lot of published studies on the uselessness of "spinal immobilization". Look up his other stuff on the topic.

I have that Hauswald paper, but it's just a review; there's no porcine experimentation either performed or cited, although he obviously would agree with the claim. Great review though.

He's done lots of good stuff on the topic. His Malaysia study is really the closest thing anyone's attempted that gets at the heart of the issue.

I have a vague memory of a pig study along these lines, but I can neither locate it now nor remember where I encountered it.

 

[Brandon O]

Mainly at the state level but is gaining ground nationally through the American Medical Association backing. However it is all bungled up with Obamacare.

here is an article, though it focuses more on the obamacare involvement...but part of the underlying push is to create protections for implementing changes based on research and a consensus of an established scientific advisory board.

http://www.amednews.com/article/20130415/government/130419963/1/

Maybe I'm misreading, but the way they're describing it seems to be different -- almost opposite -- from your description. They're depicting a law that would protect doctors adhering to the EXISTING standard of care, in the event that plaintiffs allege they've violated NEW "standards" created by the Obamacare metrics -- in other words, emphasizing that you won't be liable for practicing the same old medicine even with new, possibly distinct goals and guidelines out there designed to improve efficiency.

In fact, it seems to explicitly omit the sort of counter-protection you mentioned:

"The only way we were willing to allow the bill to go forward was to have it go both ways," Clark said. "If a physician can't be held accountable for malpractice for failing to adhere to a payment guideline, then they also shouldn't be able to use their compliance with a standard as evidence that they complied with the standard of care. If it can't be used against you as a sword, you also can't use it for a shield."

Although in any case this seems mostly about the Obamacare guidelines and not evidence-based medicine per se.

 

[Arovetli]

Maybe I'm misreading, but the way they're describing it seems to be different -- almost opposite -- from your description. They're depicting a law that would protect doctors adhering to the EXISTING standard of care, in the event that plaintiffs allege they've violated NEW "standards" created by the Obamacare metrics -- in other words, emphasizing that you won't be liable for practicing the same old medicine even with new, possibly distinct goals and guidelines out there designed to improve efficiency.

In fact, it seems to explicitly omit the sort of counter-protection you mentioned:

"The only way we were willing to allow the bill to go forward was to have it go both ways," Clark said. "If a physician can't be held accountable for malpractice for failing to adhere to a payment guideline, then they also shouldn't be able to use their compliance with a standard as evidence that they complied with the standard of care. If it can't be used against you as a sword, you also can't use it for a shield."

Although in any case this seems mostly about the Obamacare guidelines and not evidence-based medicine per se.

Do not take political propaganda at face value. its not that you are misreading it, it is just a confusing tangle.

as i already pointed out, it has become bungled with obamacare, and the article is written with a different slant, but it is the slant that is working to achieve national momentum.

Any bill contains subterfuge, compromises, competing interests, pork, and a plethora of words which have no meaning.

Dislike of obamacare may provide enough momentum to overcome the trial lawyer lobby.

the article is merely a starting point and provides national attention relevant to a broad audience, and names a few key players.

A google search of safe harbor legislation, malpractice reform, or other keywords may point you towards information more focused on your locality. I can PM you many details of what is going on in Georgia if you are interested in the origin of this particular push.

Malpractice laws are very fragmented and each state is different and faces different challenges. A federal issue has its own challenges, and obfuscating safe harbor inside of an obamacare response may be effective and seems to be gathering some steam.