TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

"Are patients getting sick or cured in hospitals?''

I am willing to write a magazine article about this topic:
"Are patients getting sick or cured in hospitals?''
This is mostly about the hospital environment where the patient stays for days weeks and even months. Here in my country, patients are left as objects where health professionals visit them for a short period of time, do their job in minutes and then disappear! Patients spend the rest of their time with pain, listening and watching other sufferers , and waiting for death.
They are isolated from the world.
When we visit relative patients in minutes, we feel the bad conditions they live in, talk for minutes and then forget about it. But they, patients, are the ones who have to stay there and try to cope with it.
Obviously, this is not right and must be changed.
Please help me by 'donating' ideas!!
What are the bad things you notice in hospitals?
What are the good things that you notice in hospitals and is done somewhere in the world?
What are the good things that you notice(from your ideas and imagination)?
If we had to make a non-profit organization to deal with this, then what will it have to do?
This is mostly about fixing the hospital's environment and making a better place where patients can enjoy their stay!

social workers, clowns, magicians....anything,, I respect all ideas!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 25 2012: Bruce, A few years ago the UK had the concept of multidisciplinary treatment, which sounds similar to what you describe. One problem with the current mechanistic approach is that it encourages too much narrow specialism, and the mindset of the specialist is to dismiss as irrelevant anything which is outside his domain. In the medical context that amounts to ignoring symptoms which demonstrate serious problems in other domains. The multidisciplinary approach went some way to compensate for this by including multiple domains, and also healthcare practitioners who were 'lower' in the hierarchy than the specialists. That went some way to ensuring that the patient's symptoms were analysed, as opposed to today's more common approach, which amounts to specialists picking out the systems which interest them and discarding everything else.
    • thumb
      Feb 25 2012: Hi Anne- Yes, I'm familiar with many of the attempts of the UK system to address the health care issues. They have all failed (at least for the most part- I know some have had limited success due to the extraordinary efforts of individuals who are passionate, committed people) due to a reductionist science (fragmentation) approach. It is necessary for the specialist to relinquish control of their knowledge (codifying it for all others to learn from on the team) and be driven by the purpose to improve care for identifiable patient groups. Everyone working together for the purpose of improving care is the core of the solution. Our current health care system structure (individual physician practice and hospital hierarchy and vertical department silos) does not support this care structure- that's why everything starts with a new system structure. The attempts at multidisciplinary care in the UK never included a structural change in how care was delivered- that is why the specialists had the ability to function autonomously. In our model, no one, not even the specialist, has any more authority or status than the patient, family and anyone else on the team.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.