I'm frankly surprised they should be surprised about this - wanting to talk to a hospital about their issues with resistant germs is like asking a restaurant about the roaches in their kitchen...
The surprise is that hospitals are allowed to act this way. Patient privacy is one thing, but this is attempting to suppress information to the public about deadly infections.
> Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
> 6. Honesty
> Holders of public office should be truthful.
2) The Professional Standards Organisation's Standards for members of NHS boards and Clinical Commissioning Group governing bodies in England
> Honesty: I will act with honesty in all my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours and decision-making, and will resolve any conflicts arising from personal, professional or financial interests that could influence or be thought to influence my decisions as a board member
> Openness: I will be open about the reasoning, reasons,and processes underpinning my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours,and decision-making and about any conflicts of interest
That's a really fascinating thought. We often hear and talk about "public health" in the US - but also have serious issues with approving "public" health organizations and care providers. It's ironic how we want our private businesses to take care of our public health.
There's lots of work and discussion going on regarding drug resistance.
Funny, I've been to plenty of conferences and talks about it and I've never seen a journalist.
They just want to churn out articles like this one: FIND OUT ABOUT THIS ONE DEADLY BUG THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT. No surprise they get few responses.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. The linked article is a "Times Insider" article, so an article about the reporting that went into a much longer article. It focuses on the difficulties the reporter had researching the topic, and I don't think that any of it is fear-mongery like your all-caps title.
The article whose reporting this one focuses on [0] is quite long and strikes me as being well-researched, thorough in its explanations, and not over the top in its take on the issue. Sure, there's a little bit of intrigue, but that just makes for interesting reading.
It's also a paradox to their oath. You come to an hospital to get better, not leave worse. Hiding this mislead people coming in. It's sensitive, I'm not advocating for information spreading panic but still.
People do go into restaurants with viruses though, and restaurants get treated very harshly should people get infected from someone or some foodstuff there.
Restaurant's don't create viruses, they just pass them on, usually unwittingly (and sometimes despite good hygiene practices) but one nasty outbreak traced to a restaurant can destroy a reputation (and kill a business).
The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant where 240 people suffered gastroenteritis (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea) due to norovirus, probably carried in Oysters:
Who is to blame here? Maybe the Oyster farmer, but maybe the distributor. It could have been a single employee with norovirus in the restaurant (or anywhere in the distribution chain).
Most likely no-one did anything wrong and this was just "one of those things"
"We also received full support by our insurers who found no fault in our practices following a report from a leading UK independent specialist. There is still no guaranteed safety measure in place today to protect the general public with regards to shellfish and viral contamination. For this reason we still do not serve oysters or razor clams at the Fat Duck."
Fat Duck was criticised for poor food hygiene practices.
> Restaurant's don't create viruses
They can dramatically amplify the viral / bacteria presence though. Norovirus is pretty nasty (potentially fatal). Very small amounts of norovirus will cause illness. This is why excellent hygiene is needed in restaurants.
Fat Duck was slow to respond to the incident; they had staff working who should not have been working due to sickness; they were using the wrong cleaning products.
I think that's a fairly harsh reading of the report.
Saying "Fat Duck was criticised for poor food hygiene practices" is a little different to saying "Several weaknesses in procedures at the restaurant may have contributed to ongoing transmission."
The report simply says that they relied too heavily on using alcohol gels which don't work so well on norovirus.
It also says that they are unsure if it was The Fat Duck's staff that continued to infect customers or if the Oysters they continued to use continued to be infected.
Yes, excellent hygiene is needed in Restaurants but excellent hygiene won't always stop a norovirus.
One thing not mentioned here (that I suspect might be a factor) is that restaurants that serve tasting menus are more at risk of causing an outbreak like this. If everyone eats a large number of identical courses each with a diverse number of ingredients the possibility of one of those ingredients infecting a large number of people is surely greatly increased.
> one nasty outbreak traced to a restaurant can destroy a reputation (and kill a business).
> The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant...
The Fat Duck is still open, has three Michelin stars and is booked out months in advance. Possibly not the best example of a reputation being destroyed or a business being killed.
Indeed. Some hospitals have really bad statistics on treatment-resistant infections. The reason? They are a better hospital, and they specialise in dealing with them, so when someone at another hospital is diagnosed with one, they get shipped there.
That's clear, however the consequences are the same: if word gets out that a certain hospital has these issues, people will avoid it, same as a restaurant with severe hygiene issues. So the tendency to keep this topic on the down low is understandable, even if I personally don't agree with it either...
