| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front Economy | |
| Hospitals are shutting down burn centers | |
| 2007-08-08 | |
| |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #9 If there is a mass casualty attack that involves lots of living burned patients, does it matter how many beds we have? Where will those beds be? Think about it, even if you had 5000 beds in New York, if there are 10,000 severe burn victims half of the excess will die long before they reach a specialized burn unit. Part of that is simply logistics. The truth of the matter is, if there is a mass casualty attack that leaves even several 1000's of wounded the system will be overwhelmed no matter what you do. What if there are multiple attacks? As sad as it is there is no way to prepare for EVERY contingency. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2007-08-08 16:58 |
| #8 Brooke in San Antonio is one of the worlds best burn centers, and has been since Vietnam. More than 100 bunks there unfortunatly. Beumont in El Paso also had an extensive burn center when I was there in 71. |
| Posted by: Heriberto Ulusomble6667 2007-08-08 10:35 |
| #7 Anguper, Sadly the civilian planning for a mass burn casualty incident has relied on using military facilities to make up the difference. They apparently haven't noticed that the military capabilities have shrunk so badly that they're now down effectively to about 100 beds nationwide. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-08-08 08:13 |
| #6 It means we do not pay enough for that specialized care. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-08-08 07:59 |
| #5 I noticed that, too AH9418. Not much of a drop. Must be a slow news day, eh? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-08-08 07:37 |
| #4 The USA has never come close to having the number of burn unit beds needed in case of a WMD attack, such as a small nuclear air burst over a populated area. The article states the # of burn unit beds has gone down from 1897 to 1820. Really not much of a difference. If 5,000 severely burned patients needed beds all at once, well, you can fill in the rest. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-08 02:53 |
| #3 Our own burn unit is reasonably busy (unfortunately), but it does cost a lot of money. And we're constantly boarding non-burn patients there because it is an ICU, and we need ICU beds. Burn patients are like trauma patients: you need the best when you need it, right now, and it's really expensive to be the best. And too many patients lack insurance to make either burn or trauma cost-effective. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-08-08 00:56 |
| #2 "Burn units are money losers" > IOW, too long lead times + too few patients, etc. between incidents to justify 24-7-365 operations. Taking up vital beds + bed spaces that can be used for other thingys. Sub-IOW, likely means consolidations-mergers and outsourcings. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-08-08 00:44 |
| #1 Depends on how much it's worth to you. Ain't no one doing it for free. |
| Posted by: Clart Henbane8757 2007-08-08 00:36 |