Was an 8-hour wait really unreasonable?
CMAJ 1998;158:585
The article "Despite some PR fallout, proponents say MD walkouts increase awareness and may improve health care" (CMAJ 1997;157[9]:1268-71 [full text / en bref]), by Nicole Baer, begins with a vignette about a patient who was 3 months pregnant and "bleeding profusely." It is claimed that the patient waited 8 hours without being assessed.
I suspect that in fact the patient's case was assessed first by a nurse and then by an emergency physician. Did she really wait 8 hours to see a physician, or did she wait that long before seeing a gynecologist?
If the former, she certainly does have a beef with the medical profession, but if the latter, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
In most Ontario emergency departments, patients who have first-trimester bleeding in the face of an otherwise normal physical examination are usually treated with reassurance and sent home to await developments. If a patient demands that she see a gynecologist and undergo ultrasonography, perhaps an 8-hour wait is not unreasonable.
One hates to be picky, but the physicians in the article who are most critical of physician job action seem to be those who are no longer practising medicine! Is there a message here?
John M. Rapin, MD
Kingston, Ont.
 |
Send a letter to the editor responding to this article
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction au sujet de cet article |
Letters