CDC: Ebola confirmed in Dallas patient
A patient in a Dallas hospital has been confirmed to have the Ebola virus, News 8 has learned.Read on wfaa.& #8203;com
From WFAA:
In a statement issued Tuesday night, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas said the patient was admitted based on symptoms and "recent travel history."
The hospital, located at Greenville Avenue and Walnut Hill Lane in northeast Dallas, said it's complying with all recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and the Texas Department of Health to ensure the safety of other patients and medical staff.
Link - (
New Window )
Oh please. Where did I absolve the ER in this? If you want to be critical of an argument, at least don't distort it because you don't like that it goes against yours.
People are so ready to criticize with rudimentary understandings of an incredibly complex and dynamic environment.
So, what, you're ready to ascribe singular fault to the ER, and yet then believe in the fact that this person, coming from W. Africa and seeing what happens when you declare you have Ebola, openly expressed his direct contact with the disease?
OK.
Link - ( New Window )
My wife works in the ER of a major hospital in NJ. She believes that there is something very fishy going on with this Texas hospital situation and the drips and drabs of details we are receiving.
Weeks ago, a patient showed up to the ER of her hospital with flu like symptoms. As is the custom -- ALWAYS -- they took the patient's travel history. He responded that he had just flown in from Liberia days earlier. News of African Ebola outbreaks had been around for weeks. So, immediately, they contacted the CDC for further instructions because the potential for an Ebola case automatically comes within the scope of the CDC's authority. The CDC's directive? Treat the patient for flu and send him home. After explicit requests for authority to conduct a test for Ebola, the CDC rejected them, saying that the person was "low risk." No further explanation. Of course, the doctor and the rest of the staff documented the hell out of this case, and sent him on his way.
We have not heard much from the Texas hospital. I cannot fathom that they did not -- as is patently obvious to all of us armchair medical professions -- contact the CDC immediately upon seeing that an African visitor with flu-like symptoms just flew in from Liberia. Every ER professional is hyper aware of Ebola and the likelihood that a patient with it will show up on their doorstep. Also, there's no way that someone in the ER did not know (or care to find out) whether Sierra Leone was in West Africa or that West Africa has been an Ebola hotbed for weeks/months. What the real story is here, I do not know, but something does not add up.
But we will just have to agree to disagree, this is going in circles.
On September 24, four days after he arrived in Dallas from Liberia, Duncan started feeling symptoms. That day is significant because that's when he started being contagious.
Late the following night, he went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas with a low-grade fever and abdominal pain, the hospital said.
Duncan told a nurse he had been in Africa.
But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," said Dr. Mark Lester, executive vice president of Texas Health Resources. Duncan was sent home with painkillers and antibiotics, only to return in worse condition on September 28. That's when he was isolated.
"It was a mistake. They dropped the ball," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said of the miscommunication at the hospital.
"You don't want to pile on them, but hopefully this will never happen again. ... The CDC has been vigorously emphasizing the need for a travel history."
Gupta said this mishap doesn't make sense.
"A nurse did ask the question, and he did respond that he was in Liberia, and that wasn't transmitted to people who were in charge of his care," he said. "There's no excuse for this." And one of Duncan's friends said he was the one who contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with concerns that the hospital wasn't moving quickly enough after Duncan's second hospital visit.
But the hospital said the patient's condition "did not warrant admission" last week.
CNN article - ( New Window )
Haven't seen a response yet that disputes that.
You know then, with privacy laws, we will never be able to do more than speculate.
How many thousands of in-service hours have been spent on infectious disease intake protocol?
Talk between medical professionals and between general public will occur on different levels.
What a clusterfuck.
Quote:
The article states that she was suffering from it. I assume that the Times didn't immediately track down and find out who this unknown dead pregnant woman was and then also uncover that she had Ebola after the fact that he is now sick. It is much more likely he conveyed that information to someone and who the reporter got it from. Him not having any idea at all and it was only The Times piecing this together only days after it is reported he is sick is only plausible if you are looking for ways to apologize for the ER's goof.
Oh please. Where did I absolve the ER in this? If you want to be critical of an argument, at least don't distort it because you don't like that it goes against yours.
People are so ready to criticize with rudimentary understandings of an incredibly complex and dynamic environment.
So, what, you're ready to ascribe singular fault to the ER, and yet then believe in the fact that this person, coming from W. Africa and seeing what happens when you declare you have Ebola, openly expressed his direct contact with the disease?
OK.
I am not the one distorting things, Where did I say you absolved them of anything. I did accuse you of being apologetic, which you were.
adjective: apologetic
regretfully acknowledging or excusing an offense or failure.
I'll break it down simply why you distorted my words (since I wasn't being apologetic, nor excusing their failure).
I never excused them. Instead, I pointed out the significant folly in posing a mono-causal explanation as a failure by the ER. I pointed out that, quite often, extraneous information will be discarded if it's not deemed relevant to the diagnosis. And that this is often good in "most cases".
Now, what part of that isn't clear? The fact that I'm allowing for this to be a fuck up, since it didn't work in this case? Or the fact that this diagnosis strategy is useful because it allows for timely and quick responses to patients in need?
In case it wasn't clear, you can go back and re-read my 10:21. If that's being apologetic, perhaps you used the wrong definition?
Where, precisely, am I excusing a failure? If pointing out why these methods are used is excusing a failure, then perhaps a new word needs to be created.
This is just getting silly. I pointed out that I think they goofed whether you agree with me or take exception to that is fine. Whether I think it sounds like you were making excuses for the ER staff in doing so is irrelevant and should be equally fine. It's not that big a deal.
Believe it or not, you can use synonyms.
You chose to be facetious, and I simply countered you didn't understand what I was saying, even though it's right there...
Or explicit recommendations that certain indicators (Africa, or recent traveler) should have more extensive documentation histories by a hospital.
Link - ( New Window )
Liberia and other countries, it seems, are fighting to avoid becoming a huge quarantine zone. The consequences for northwest African economies is already dire. They don't need cowards like him to make it worse.
Link - ( New Window )
The likelihood of him surviving this in the US is far greater than in Liberia.
This won't be the only instance either.
Link - ( New Window )
it is worst in the nation