Not really, but when you are dealing with a person who has an online personality that appears to be mean, spiteful, and predictable, like “Blogging Bayport’s” proprietor, it is easy to see what’s coming. Back on June 7, I posted a comment to my own blog. Since that time, Do has published several pieces on her blog – all of which have been factually inaccurate in some way. Up to today, character assassination was not part of the attack, but she just can’t resist.
To the meat of her argument, that professionals on Alameda staff are right and I am wrong; I will just invite you to take a look at the studies that one doctor quoted. The first one’s abstract is here and gives you a link to pay for the full article. It concludes:
Compared with non-CAHs, CAHs had fewer clinical capabilities, worse measured processes of care, and higher mortality rates for patients with AMI, CHF, or pneumonia.
The second one I could not find even though I was searching for it. It might be a commentary on another article, but I’m not sure. What the quote that Dr. L cited when he spoke essentially boiled down to is that one should not blame volume for the outcome disparity which was seen in the study, but that differences in patient selection are a confounding factor. Neither of those studies were used on this blog because they were not applicable.
No study has ever shown that low hospital volume is beneficial to outcomes. That Dr. L. cherry picks a few quotes from studies that I deemed inapplicable and that, for all practical purposes, support my conclusion is a discredit to him. I only referenced studies (and only a smattering of studies) that I felt were most applicable. If someone wants to read the 100’s (1000’s?) of studies that look at volume-outcome associations and find one that shows an inverse relationship then be my guest, but you won’t just have to convince me, you will have to convince every other serious person in the world.