Comment: The hospital is evil in terms of mortality

A few days ago, the National Health Planning Commission issued the second and third-level comprehensive hospital medical service capacity standards (draft for soliciting opinions ). It is said that the purpose of formulating hospital medical service capacity standards is to further clarify the functional positioning of level 2 and level 3 hospitals, improve the medical service system, and promote hierarchical diagnosis and treatment. Unexpectedly, this service capability standard has caused great controversy. However, the "standard" stipulates that the mortality rate of hospitalized patients in level-2 general hospitals should not exceed 0.4%, and the mortality rate during hospitalization should not exceed 0.28%. In tertiary hospitals, the mortality cannot exceed 0.8%, and in-hospital procedures, the mortality cannot exceed 1.4%.

It is incredible to use mortality to determine the service standard classification. In real life, mortality is a sensitive word, especially for public services or organizations that are at high risk of working. Any rational person knows that risks always exist in such a situation and cannot be completely prevented or killed in any case. However, from the kind will of mankind, the death rate is 0, which is the most ethical. Unfortunately, this is often impossible.

Medical practitioners accuse hospitals and doctors of being "extremely stupid" in terms of mortality: "The fact is that the better doctors treat, the higher the mortality rate, because he performed the most complex and difficult procedure, the most critical patient with the highest mortality. They challenge the medical limit, and they bring a glimmer of life to the patients who have a serious illness. Measuring the levels of hospitals and doctors with mortality is actually putting critical patients at risk ."

In fact, I'm afraid the Health Planning Commission cannot explain why some hospitals have a higher mortality rate? Does that mean that these hospitals are less secure? If people with serious illness flood into hospitals with lower mortality, will the relevant hospitals be rejected? If you do not accept or reduce the number of critically ill patients, will the "qualification" be "Improved "? If all the above logic is reasonable, what will be the cause of medical ethics?

From the data point of view, the relevant personnel have been concerned about the sensitivity of the data and adjusted the mortality limit to a very low level. However, what is the base of the mortality rate? Is the number of people who have been hospitalized repeatedly counted? How can we differentiate responsibilities when the transfer is completed? In the event of a major disaster or accident, isn't the nearest hospital a "big Mold "?

According to relevant sources, this is to use data to evaluate the real situation of Network POS machines. Yes, data may be "scientific", but when such "scientific" is irrelevant to ethics, "Science" may become evil-the current mortality standard, in fact, it is used by hospitals to "hedge" statistics against their own disadvantages. Such "hedging" means can be said that the vast majority of these measures have nothing to do with improving the level of medical technology. On the contrary, it is related to abandoning the ethical standards of public service institutions. As a result, it is predicted that once this set of standards is implemented, the relationship between doctors and patients will be farther away from "Harmony.

Do not do what you want. There is no reasonable mortality in the world, so mortality should never be used as a standard to measure the quality of management and operation. Because the standards for all public medical institutions should move closer to the highest level, and the mortality rate should be 0. This is also the Standard and ethical realm pursued by modern medicine.