The author makes a claim that the care received at university hospitals are of lower quality compared to that of other kinds of hospitals. This is further supported by the fact that university hospitals have a lower success rate than community or private hospitals. Another reason it sites is that university hospitals employ fewer doctors, pay lower wages and make less overall profit. I strongly disagree with the author. This reasoning is seriously flawed because the evaluation of the quality of care is made solely on some quantifiable measures without considering whether the both types of hospitals offere equal treatments or not.
University hospitals are more research oriented and therefore concentrate their efforts on researching new treatment techniques. This undoubtedly has more risk compared to standard treatment techniques employed by community and private hospitals simply because these treatments could still be in development. For example, let us consider two very different patients, a heart patient and a patient having the common flu. Treatments for both these ailments are completely different in their complexity and risk. The risks associated with performing a coronary bypass on a heart patient are far more significant compared prescribing antibiotics to a flu patient. Therefore, It is only unfair to compare the success rates of both these types of treatment.
An assumption underlying this argument is that fewer doctors coupled with the fact that their involvement in treating patients is only part of their jobs shows lower doctor to patient ratio. But in fact, university hospitals could be having far fewer patients compared to those receiving treatments from private and community hospitals. University hospitals are catered for specialized treatment and the doctors are probably specialists in their respective fields. It is unfair to compare quality between the two types of hospitals on the basis of the number of doctors.
It is evident that the reasoning to support the notion that the quality care at university hospitals are lower than that of other kinds of hospitals. A fair comparison can only be made between hospitals which offer the same treatments. University hospitals cater for patients who need very specialized, and sometimes risky, treatment that are not available at other kinds of hspitals.
University hospitals are more research oriented and therefore concentrate their efforts on researching new treatment techniques. This undoubtedly has more risk compared to standard treatment techniques employed by community and private hospitals simply because these treatments could still be in development. For example, let us consider two very different patients, a heart patient and a patient having the common flu. Treatments for both these ailments are completely different in their complexity and risk. The risks associated with performing a coronary bypass on a heart patient are far more significant compared prescribing antibiotics to a flu patient. Therefore, It is only unfair to compare the success rates of both these types of treatment.
An assumption underlying this argument is that fewer doctors coupled with the fact that their involvement in treating patients is only part of their jobs shows lower doctor to patient ratio. But in fact, university hospitals could be having far fewer patients compared to those receiving treatments from private and community hospitals. University hospitals are catered for specialized treatment and the doctors are probably specialists in their respective fields. It is unfair to compare quality between the two types of hospitals on the basis of the number of doctors.
It is evident that the reasoning to support the notion that the quality care at university hospitals are lower than that of other kinds of hospitals. A fair comparison can only be made between hospitals which offer the same treatments. University hospitals cater for patients who need very specialized, and sometimes risky, treatment that are not available at other kinds of hspitals.
