| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 563.1 | I got them also | ASABET::TRUMPOLT | Liz - ML05-3/T92 - 223-6321 | Thu Dec 13 1990 10:46 | 10 |
| Andrea, I received the same package from Emerson last year when I was
going to have my son. I was also impressed with the stats. I think it
is a new thing that they have to do because of the many cases of
malpractice suits that are being filed, etc.
I myself think that it is a good idea for the hospitals to send these
out to their incoming patients.
Liz
|
| 563.2 | | PHAROS::PATTON | | Thu Dec 13 1990 11:34 | 8 |
| I got this info in '87 from Beth Israel in Boston. It seemed to be
a routine mailing to anyone in the prenatal classes - don't know if
it was law or not. I was *not* real happy with the c-section rate,
even though theirs is not particularly high compared to others. I was
happy to have such detailed communication, though.
Lucy
|
| 563.3 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 13 1990 12:18 | 5 |
| re .2:
Sounds like another case of meaningless statistics. Doesn't BI handle
a lot of high-risk pregnancies? That might account for a high rate
of C-sections. Now if they told you the number of unnecessary C-sections...
|
| 563.4 | Watch out for stats | CUPMK::TAKAHASHI | | Thu Dec 13 1990 12:30 | 9 |
| The "meangingless" stats sound like a marketing ploy to me. After all,
all of these hospitals are actually in competition for business now.
I haven't received my package from Winchester Hospital yet, but I'll
keep an eye out for it. Do they mention the ages of the patients, how
many previously had C-sections, whether they were high risk to start
with, etc. You would need to know all this before you could base
anything on the figures.
Nancy
|
| 563.5 | No age breakdown | CARTUN::MANDALINCI | | Thu Dec 13 1990 13:45 | 13 |
| With the breakdown that Emerson mailed me, they seem to cover all the
bases. Ages were not mentioned, probably only because it was 1-page
and ages breakdown would turn it into a 20-page report.
They did include stats of planned c-sections, unplanned c-sections,
VBAC's, medicated broken down into spinal, epidural, other,
unmedicated, internal monitors, external monitors, etc.
Maybe the Mass "regulation" number on the bottom if in reference to the
regulation that they must provide the Mass health autorities with this
info.
Andrea
|
| 563.6 | stats mean what? | COOKIE::CHEN | Madeline S. Chen, D&SG Marketing | Wed Dec 19 1990 18:43 | 9 |
| I personally don't care that much about hospital stats in this area.
The psychological wellbeing of the mother, and her physical care seem
to be more dependant on the doctor than any other variable. So *if*
such statistics were to be meaningful to me, I'd want to see a
physician by physician breakdown. I agree that this seems to be a
marketing ploy - I use it all the time.
-m
|
| 563.7 | Measures the wrong thing | CIVIC::JANEB | See it happen => Make it happen | Thu Dec 20 1990 10:09 | 7 |
| Also (sorry if this has already been mentioned), the stats sometimes
can be VERY misleading: a great hospital with facilities for high-risk
pregnancies may have numbers that look bad and a hospital that just
doesn't take those cases (sends them to the other hospital) would look
much better in the stats. This tells you nothing about what will
happen to you, or worse, indicates the opposite of the truth when
you're looking for which will be safer and better for you.
|