6 ms·

I'm frankly surprised they should be surprised about this - wanting to talk to a hospital about their issues with resistant germs is like asking a restaurant ab

by rob74 7y ago

I'm frankly surprised they should be surprised about this - wanting to talk to a hospital about their issues with resistant germs is like asking a restaurant about the roaches in their kitchen...

threezero 7y ago
The surprise is that hospitals are allowed to act this way. Patient privacy is one thing, but this is attempting to suppress information to the public about deadly infections.
- okasaki 7y ago
  Act in what way? Is there some obligation for hospital staff to talk to journalists?
  - post_below 7y ago
    The answer is in the post you're replying to... Public health is a reasonable priority to expect from a hospital. Without a public conversation about resistant bugs, the causes (drug overuse) will never be addressed.
    - okasaki 7y ago
      There's lots of work and discussion going on regarding drug resistance. Funny, I've been to plenty of conferences and talks about it and I've never seen a journalist. They just want to churn out articles like this one: FIND OUT ABOUT THIS ONE DEADLY BUG THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT. No surprise they get few responses.
      - el_benhameen 7y ago
        I don't think that's a fair characterization. The linked article is a "Times Insider" article, so an article about the reporting that went into a much longer article. It focuses on the difficulties the reporter had researching the topic, and I don't think that any of it is fear-mongery like your all-caps title. The article whose reporting this one focuses on [0] is quite long and strikes me as being well-researched, thorough in its explanations, and not over the top in its take on the issue. Sure, there's a little bit of intrigue, but that just makes for interesting reading. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-candida-auris.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...
    - mbarronj 7y ago
      That's a really fascinating thought. We often hear and talk about "public health" in the US - but also have serious issues with approving "public" health organizations and care providers. It's ironic how we want our private businesses to take care of our public health.
  - pfortuny 7y ago
    Their obligation is to keep the authorities informed (and these to inform the public). At least someone is not doing their job, it seems, which is when journalism is most important.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    In England there's several duties here. 1) Nolan Principles of Public Life https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-... > 5. Openness > Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. > 6. Honesty > Holders of public office should be truthful. 2) The Professional Standards Organisation's Standards for members of NHS boards and Clinical Commissioning Group governing bodies in England > Honesty: I will act with honesty in all my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours and decision-making, and will resolve any conflicts arising from personal, professional or financial interests that could influence or be thought to influence my decisions as a board member > Openness: I will be open about the reasoning, reasons,and processes underpinning my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours,and decision-making and about any conflicts of interest We could argue that the principle of "Duty of Candour" applies. https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/regulations-enforcement/regulation-20-duty-candour https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/regulations-enforc... In England I'd be pushing hard for these hospitals to be more open about what's happening and what they're doing to fix it.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      I forgot the link to the PSO document. Here it is, it's just four pages and it's pretty good: https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/default-source/publications/standards/standards-for-members-of-nhs-boards-and-ccgs-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=2 https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/default-source...
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    It's also a paradox to their oath. You come to an hospital to get better, not leave worse. Hiding this mislead people coming in. It's sensitive, I'm not advocating for information spreading panic but still.
Dylan16807 7y ago
People don't come into a restaurant pouring out buckets of super-roaches that are immune to all normal methods of extermination. If a restaurant has roaches it's their own fault. If a hospital has to fight back a resistant germ it doesn't show they did anything wrong.
- rob74 7y ago
  That's clear, however the consequences are the same: if word gets out that a certain hospital has these issues, people will avoid it, same as a restaurant with severe hygiene issues. So the tendency to keep this topic on the down low is understandable, even if I personally don't agree with it either...
  - hamilyon2 7y ago
    Well, this isn't true. If you go to hospital, you might catch dangerous infection there. It has been common sense since forever.
- sambeau 7y ago
  People do go into restaurants with viruses though, and restaurants get treated very harshly should people get infected from someone or some foodstuff there. Restaurant's don't create viruses, they just pass them on, usually unwittingly (and sometimes despite good hygiene practices) but one nasty outbreak traced to a restaurant can destroy a reputation (and kill a business). The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant where 240 people suffered gastroenteritis (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea) due to norovirus, probably carried in Oysters: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/05/fat-duck-restaurant-noroviris-outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/05/fat-duc... Who is to blame here? Maybe the Oyster farmer, but maybe the distributor. It could have been a single employee with norovirus in the restaurant (or anywhere in the distribution chain). Most likely no-one did anything wrong and this was just "one of those things" "We also received full support by our insurers who found no fault in our practices following a report from a leading UK independent specialist. There is still no guaranteed safety measure in place today to protect the general public with regards to shellfish and viral contamination. For this reason we still do not serve oysters or razor clams at the Fat Duck."

by rob74 7y ago

I'm frankly surprised they should be surprised about this - wanting to talk to a hospital about their issues with resistant germs is like asking a restaurant about the roaches in their kitchen...

threezero 7y ago

The surprise is that hospitals are allowed to act this way. Patient privacy is one thing, but this is attempting to suppress information to the public about deadly infections.

okasaki 7y ago
Act in what way? Is there some obligation for hospital staff to talk to journalists?
- post_below 7y ago
  The answer is in the post you're replying to... Public health is a reasonable priority to expect from a hospital. Without a public conversation about resistant bugs, the causes (drug overuse) will never be addressed.
  - okasaki 7y ago
    There's lots of work and discussion going on regarding drug resistance. Funny, I've been to plenty of conferences and talks about it and I've never seen a journalist. They just want to churn out articles like this one: FIND OUT ABOUT THIS ONE DEADLY BUG THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT. No surprise they get few responses.
    - el_benhameen 7y ago
      I don't think that's a fair characterization. The linked article is a "Times Insider" article, so an article about the reporting that went into a much longer article. It focuses on the difficulties the reporter had researching the topic, and I don't think that any of it is fear-mongery like your all-caps title. The article whose reporting this one focuses on [0] is quite long and strikes me as being well-researched, thorough in its explanations, and not over the top in its take on the issue. Sure, there's a little bit of intrigue, but that just makes for interesting reading. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-candida-auris.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...
  - mbarronj 7y ago
    That's a really fascinating thought. We often hear and talk about "public health" in the US - but also have serious issues with approving "public" health organizations and care providers. It's ironic how we want our private businesses to take care of our public health.
- pfortuny 7y ago
  Their obligation is to keep the authorities informed (and these to inform the public). At least someone is not doing their job, it seems, which is when journalism is most important.
- DanBC 7y ago
  In England there's several duties here. 1) Nolan Principles of Public Life https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-... > 5. Openness > Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. > 6. Honesty > Holders of public office should be truthful. 2) The Professional Standards Organisation's Standards for members of NHS boards and Clinical Commissioning Group governing bodies in England > Honesty: I will act with honesty in all my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours and decision-making, and will resolve any conflicts arising from personal, professional or financial interests that could influence or be thought to influence my decisions as a board member > Openness: I will be open about the reasoning, reasons,and processes underpinning my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours,and decision-making and about any conflicts of interest We could argue that the principle of "Duty of Candour" applies. https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/regulations-enforcement/regulation-20-duty-candour https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/regulations-enforc... In England I'd be pushing hard for these hospitals to be more open about what's happening and what they're doing to fix it.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    I forgot the link to the PSO document. Here it is, it's just four pages and it's pretty good: https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/default-source/publications/standards/standards-for-members-of-nhs-boards-and-ccgs-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=2 https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/default-source...
- agumonkey 7y ago
  It's also a paradox to their oath. You come to an hospital to get better, not leave worse. Hiding this mislead people coming in. It's sensitive, I'm not advocating for information spreading panic but still.

Dylan16807 7y ago

People don't come into a restaurant pouring out buckets of super-roaches that are immune to all normal methods of extermination. If a restaurant has roaches it's their own fault. If a hospital has to fight back a resistant germ it doesn't show they did anything wrong.

rob74 7y ago
That's clear, however the consequences are the same: if word gets out that a certain hospital has these issues, people will avoid it, same as a restaurant with severe hygiene issues. So the tendency to keep this topic on the down low is understandable, even if I personally don't agree with it either...
- hamilyon2 7y ago
  Well, this isn't true. If you go to hospital, you might catch dangerous infection there. It has been common sense since forever.
sambeau 7y ago
People do go into restaurants with viruses though, and restaurants get treated very harshly should people get infected from someone or some foodstuff there. Restaurant's don't create viruses, they just pass them on, usually unwittingly (and sometimes despite good hygiene practices) but one nasty outbreak traced to a restaurant can destroy a reputation (and kill a business). The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant where 240 people suffered gastroenteritis (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea) due to norovirus, probably carried in Oysters: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/05/fat-duck-restaurant-noroviris-outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/05/fat-duc... Who is to blame here? Maybe the Oyster farmer, but maybe the distributor. It could have been a single employee with norovirus in the restaurant (or anywhere in the distribution chain). Most likely no-one did anything wrong and this was just "one of those things" "We also received full support by our insurers who found no fault in our practices following a report from a leading UK independent specialist. There is still no guaranteed safety measure in place today to protect the general public with regards to shellfish and viral contamination. For this reason we still do not serve oysters or razor clams at the Fat Duck."