Are employers expected to accommodate this new diagnosis?
Which brings us to another management conundrum: you have a policy prohibiting workplace violence. You do not tolerate any employee who threatens other employees. But do you have an obligation to "reasonably accommodate" an employee who is diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder? Are they protected by the ADA?
I wonder if this would fly here:
"The 'open door' arrangement is not working. New gate-keeping mechanisms are needed. Strategies about who needs to be seen and those who can have medical assessment deferred must be developed order to protect the safety and health of existing in-patients," Dr Murphy writes in an editorial in the latest edition the journal.
I'm sure this is a common scenario across the country:
"Often, when I have to transfer patients with life-and-limb threatening injuries, it has taken hours to locate a physician willing to accept the transfer and obtain either helicopter or ambulance transfer," Plantz said.
"This is a source of serious liability for the emergency physicians as we are always blamed."
Orac exposes its increasing wayward ways. (via Grand Rounds)
Drs. Centor and Rangel specifically.
Apparently watchful waiting is not acceptable:
"Women would go to their doctor with a lump, and the doctor would say, well, let's just watch it," Hamer said. "Women can't accept that. They have to say, 'No, I'm not going to just watch it.' And if their physician refuses to do anything like a biopsy, then they need to go somewhere else."
Who cares when you're making big profits:
Doctors aren't alone in thinking that something's wrong when UnitedHealth's customers can't afford what the company charges in premiums and doctors can't stay in business on what it pays in reimbursements. Yet its stockholders are happy and the company's CEO got paid $1.6 billion in stock options . . .
. . . This is what reduced access to care looks like: ...
Dr. Crippen thinks Big Pharma is to blame:
Dr Crippen'Â’s old fashionedÂ” treatment for blood pressure costs a few pence a month, and the drugs he uses (such as beta-blockers and diuretics) have been around for years. They have a proven safety record. They are not going to produce any surprises. The only problem is that they do not offer any profit to the big drug companies.
Does the movie hold up to his critiquing eye?
More tidbits from the ATLA president. The ignorance is worse than I thought:
And you talk about defensive medicine; one of the things that astonishes me is the extent to which people -- and, unfortunately, the press -- are willing to buy into these wild statement that are made. Have you ever gone to your doctor and had your doctor say, 'You know, there's a test that I probably ought ...
Same old single-payer story. Why have screening guidelines at all if it takes so long to get the test?
Quebecers hoping to be screened for colon cancer are facing up to a year-long wait for diagnostic tests that could save their lives.
That's unacceptable, Barry Stein, head of the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, said yesterday.
"You can't just walk in the door and get a colonoscopy. Why? ...
An Indian BBC correspondent writes:
If our baby is a girl - her arrival is likely to be greeted, by some, with condolences. A friend - delighted with his new daughter soon became infuriated at comments that his home had been cursed with a girl.
"Relatives arrived laden with gifts of sweet meats," he said. "They cuddled her and shook their heads at our misfortune."
These are ...