If pa­tient safety is para­mount, who would drop trans­fer agree­ments?

Modern Healthcare - - Comment -

Re­gard­ing the ar­ti­cle “Hos­pi­tals urge CMS to con­tinue re­quir­ing ASC pa­tient trans­fer agree­ments” (ModernHealth­care.com, Nov. 21), ide­ally, these agree­ments are sim­ply pro­ce­dural doc­umen­ta­tion that would never be uti­lized. How­ever, those in health­care un­der­stand the to­tally unan­tic­i­pated na­ture of these events. And, when the trans­fer is re­quired, it’s an emer­gent life-sav­ing event.

Hav­ing an agree­ment in place only spells out the emer­gency pro­to­cols used when these sit­u­a­tions arise. With to­tal fo­cus on pa­tient safety and out­comes, I don’t un­der­stand how any­one could sup­port elim­i­na­tion of these agree­ments. Let’s put it in per­spec­tive. If it were your loved one, would you feel safer with or without the agree­ment in place?

Denise Adema Fort My­ers, Fla.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.