Should CNN be proud of this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 12:33 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 12:39 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
Should CNN be proud of this?
CNN takes credit for stopping a hospital from preforming heart surgeries.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/17/health/st-...index.html

I remember when CNN first reported that the mortality rate was higher at this particular hospital, I thought, "Maybe it is just bad variance....random happenstance....noise". Even the best hitters in baseball have a slumps.

Now, because of CNN(they're taking credit after all), this life saving service just got more scarce.

Should CNN be ashamed or proud?

I'm leaning that they really should be ashamed. What do you guys think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:40 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
Depending on the location, success record, and efficiency of other close by hospitals, maybe yes.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:44 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 12:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 12:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  CNN takes credit for stopping a hospital from preforming heart surgeries.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/17/health/st-...index.html

I remember when CNN first reported that the mortality rate was higher at this particular hospital, I thought, "Maybe it is just bad variance....random happenstance....noise". Even the best hitters in baseball have a slumps.

Now, because of CNN(they're taking credit after all), scarcity of this life saving service just increased.

Should CNN be ashamed or proud?

I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another.

All I will say is that if CNN's accusations proved true, the fact that it happened in church sponsored hospital in that cesspool of a state we call Florida, does not surprise me in the least.



EDIT: More context is always good.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/health/hea...l-florida/

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 12:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Depending on the location, success record, and efficiency of other close by hospitals, maybe yes.

Yeah but using a small window like they did isn't an accurate way to compare. There is an element of randomness to these things and because of that, this hospital could actually be doing these surgeries better than every other hospital in the world but over the short run, due to bad luck, have poorer results.

How many babies would have died if the hospital did not preform these surgeries? How many babies are now going to die because this hospital does not preform this surgery anymore?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:57 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 12:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  How many babies would have died if the hospital did not preform these surgeries? How many babies are now going to die because this hospital does not preform this surgery anymore?

Conversely, how many will more likely survive now that they'll have to make use of much higher volume programs that have teams with more experience (and thus lower mortality rates)?

That's why I posted the other earlier CNN article that adds a lot more context to the story that your post did not. Things like how their program was low volume, how they claimed CNN's numbers were wrong but refused to offer up their own 'correct' numbers, and the recommendations of an independent expert panel.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2015, 01:19 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 12:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 12:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  How many babies would have died if the hospital did not preform these surgeries? How many babies are now going to die because this hospital does not preform this surgery anymore?

Conversely, how many will more likely survive now that they'll have to make use of much higher volume programs that have teams with more experience (and thus lower mortality rates)?

That's why I posted the other earlier CNN article that adds a lot more context to the story that your post did not. Things like how their program was low volume, how they claimed CNN's numbers were wrong but refused to offer up their own 'correct' numbers, and the recommendations of an independent expert panel.

There are a lot of "what ifs" here. The point I am trying to make is that the sample size CNN used 2011 to 2013 was too small to make an accurate assessment.

High volume allows variance to normalize to the mean. Flip a fair coin 2 times and there is a very good chance it comes up heads both times. Flip a fair coin 10 times and there is a reasonable chance it comes up all heads all ten times. Flip a coin 100 times and if it comes up all heads, well then maybe you need to look at the coin and see if it is actually fair.

I feel like CNN is comparing a coin flipped 10 times to a coin flipped 100 times and implying that one isn't as fair as the other. It is a very very real possibility simple bad luck is blame for the higher mortality rate. It is also a very real possibility that now some babies will die because they have to travel farther for this surgery. This happened to my nephew. He died in transit because the local hospital did not provide the surgery he needed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 01:28 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 12:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 12:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Depending on the location, success record, and efficiency of other close by hospitals, maybe yes.

Yeah but using a small window like they did isn't an accurate way to compare. There is an element of randomness to these things and because of that, this hospital could actually be doing these surgeries better than every other hospital in the world but over the short run, due to bad luck, have poorer results.

How many babies would have died if the hospital did not preform these surgeries? How many babies are now going to die because this hospital does not preform this surgery anymore?

Those are more questions you don't have the information to use to judge one way or another. that's my point. Your method is strange here, very not sound and strange in this line of questioning. Basically, you're doing the exact thing you think someone else is problematic for doing.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 01:29 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 01:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I feel like CNN is comparing a coin flipped 10 times to a coin flipped 100 times and implying that one isn't as fair as the other. It is a very very real possibility simple bad luck is blame for the higher mortality rate.

It's also possible, that because they were such low volume, they never got good at said surgeries, which added even more risk and contributed to their higher-than-average mortality rate (which, once again, they refused to ever offer up their own 'corrected' rates to dispute the CNN figures).

The more skilled you are, the 'luckier' you get.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2015, 01:46 AM
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 01:28 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Those are more questions you don't have the information to use to judge one way or another. that's my point. Your method is strange here, very not sound and strange in this line of questioning. Basically, you're doing the exact thing you think someone else is problematic for doing.

CNN was in the same boat as you say I am. They made a judgement that this hospital was doing more harm than good..... and now they are happy with the results.

Nothing I have read convinces me that this hospital was doing more harm then good. Sure the mortality rate was higher, but that is not unexpected. Anyone who thinks or operates as if they think, that good streaks and bad streaks don't happen in life is simply naive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 02:17 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 02:26 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should CNN be proud of this?
(18-08-2015 01:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nothing I have read convinces me that this hospital was doing more harm then good. Sure the mortality rate was higher, but that is not unexpected. Anyone who thinks or operates as if they think, that good streaks and bad streaks don't happen in life is simply naive.

Only people who don't understand statistics refer to good or bad 'streaks'. You sound like a Las Vegas casino patron at the craps table.

It's possible that CNN's sample size was too small, but if that was the case, then cannot the argument be made that the hospital simply didn't perform enough surgeries to generate a sufficiently statistically significant result (and thus their team lacked the needed experience); as already observed and commented on by that independent panel of expert cardiologists?

If CNN's numbers were demonstrably wrong or misleading, then how come the hospital refused to ever demonstrate that by providing 'corrected' numbers?

It also needs to be remembered that this investigation stemmed from a previous one looking into the complete lack of transparency of basic statistical information, like the mortality rate of infant heart surgeries; which ranged from 1.4% to 12.1%. So it's appears that this hospital in Florida was clearly an outlier (once again, if St Mary's rate was less than the reported 12.5%, they refused to correct CNN's numbers with their own), but I don't know enough to make a professional opinion on whether or not 12.5% is an acceptable mortality rate, but it did raise enough of a red flag that the independent panel of experts recommended that they stopped operating on infants younger than six months; which was followed by the post surgery death of a few weeks old infant.


Quote:Last year in April, the Florida Department of Health sent a team of expert heart doctors to St. Mary's to review the children's heart surgery program. The head of the panel, Dr. Jeffrey Jacobs, a professor of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins, suggested they stop doing heart surgeries on babies younger than 6 months.

The baby who died Tuesday, Davi Ricardo Brandao, was only a few weeks old when he had surgery in March for a severe heart defect called truncus arteriosus, according to his mother, Pautilia Gomes. She said her son needed a second surgery later that month.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/health/hea...l-florida/


If that mother had a choice of hospitals, but St. Mary's never provided her with an accurate assessment of the risk invloved (including things like their success and mortality rates), then their omission could have very well cost that infant it's life.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: