4 ms·

If there isn't a connection between a procedure and outcomes, it just becomes garbage in/garbage out.

• FireBeyond 14y ago
  Perhaps so, but the human body is an analog system, not a digital. To wit: the rule of 9s for "surface area burns" is an estimate, but treatment will vary based on what surfaces are burned to what extent. One 25% burn patient will differ from another. Another (over-simplified) example: GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale): a score between 3-15 on three axes to measure neurological consciousness. Even in interpretation, the number is often referred to as a single score, when in reality, the three axes (eye response, verbal response, and motor response) can indicate vastly different neurological components and treatment/assessment options. Where I'm getting at with these examples is that systemizing and optimizing checklists and treatment plans can lead to hugely complex branching that seemingly become unfeasible to realistically manage without (exaggerated for effect, but similar in practice) a doctor or RN going to a computer between each treatment step to see the process and branches.
• DanBC 14y ago
  but that's the point - different doctors do things differently, and there's not enough research to say which is best. Ethics committees add a weird result where it's hard to test which is best (http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/when-ethics-committees-kill/ http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/when-ethics-committees-kil...) So, does a check list prefer one method over another? Or do you have one massive check list with sub-sections for each method? Or do you have a separate list for each method?