POLL: The Emergency Room...

Remove all ads!

Ok, yesterday I was rushed to the ER due to a serious bad reaction to one of the 5 medications I'm taking to treat my asthma and bronchitis. I forgot the medical term, but basically my lungs were about to shut down, and I wouldn't be able to breathe.
Anyway, when I got the ER, I was lucky enough to be the only one at the hospital that needed attention...but in the past, when I had a very serious case of pneumonia, I had to wait to be seen while the doctors were treating people with non life threatening problems...like broken arms, or cracked ribs, all the while my lungs were filling with fluid.

I was just wondering how many of you have had be taken to the ER, and if you believe they should take patients by first come, first serve; or by the intensity of the ailment.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 32 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The Emergency Room... (32 votes.)

Have you ever been taken to the ER of a hospitial. (Choose 1)
* Yes, and it WAS a life threatening situation. - 25% (8)
* Yes, but it was NOT a life threatening situation. - 47% (15)
* No. - 25% (8)
* Just the results for me. - 3% (1)

Should people be admitted to the ER on a first come, first serve basis? (Choose 1)
* Yes, if someone is about to die, they should have gotten to the ER sooner. - 9% (3)
* No, if someone is about to die, a crying child with a broken arm can wait. - 88% (28)
* Just the results for me. - 3% (1)

 

#1 As an infant I had some of that. My mother had to wait in queues for up to 4 hours. Rarely was any emergency life-threatening after that time, or not so many times that I realised. I'm the type of guy to go partying so soon as anaesthetics don't hold me to the ground, so I might have missed a few. I'll die some day anyway. As you can see, nothing lethal has happened yet

#2 Life is priority. Someone should be seen to the court for negligence or dereliction of duty, in my humble opinion. But perhaps they decided that your case wan't life-threatening. It's very hard for me to imagine a doctor who wouldn't save life in emergency, but stick to the schedule instead. In lazarets during wars they first cure people who can return to the battlefield the fastest, but nothing of that kind is normal in civilian hospitals anytime. If I were you and they had been aware of emergency, I would sue them. Especially if I lived in US.

 

I've been to the Emergancy dept. quite often. Most the time I can't remember because I was either to young, or most likely, uncoscious.

I have been there for a variety of reason, sometimes I just stop breathing, sometimes I can't move, usually because I've dislocated one of my joints.

My latest trip was when I was taken in from school after my elbow had dislocated and blocked an artery. I was in the hospital for four hours, it took several to get seen and I was in pain and felt faint.

Personally I think four hours is a long time to wait. I think it should be serve you as you come. But if a life-threatening case comes then they should cut the line.

 

Your answer is: Both. Standard policy in hospital emergency rooms (at least in the U.S.) is first come first serve, unless a more severe case comes in that can't wait. So it's not a question of what you prefer, that's just how it is.

I used to be an admitting clerk in an ER (in a Utah hospital, no less), and I'd have to say it definitely depends on the hospital, and how many rooms the ER has available at the time, but usually the above policy is followed to the letter. Part of my job was to determine who needed to be admitted right away, and who could have a seat and wait. It's a tough job and sometimes you have to be a jerk, but if we let everyone back immediately who was screaming bloody murder, they would have to treat people in the hallways because there would be no more ER beds.

The policy at most hospitals is to treat people in the order of arrival, with chest pain, severe wounds, asthma attacks, etc. being the exception that gets to usurp everyone else in line. This does end up pissing people off who've been waiting for hours, but hey - it's a hospital. Convenience rides second seat to priority patient care, every time. Or at least it's supposed to.

Doctors can't just kick people out of their rooms mid procedure. I hate to say it, but either you got to the hospital on a very busy night, or you just happened to visit a very poorly run ER.

 

If someone is about to die, they should definately get priority. I was only there twice, both in grade eight. The first time because of a skiing accident, the second because of chess club. If I saw someone in critical condition who was being forced to wait, I'd tell the doctors that I could wait.

 

Silly reepnorp! You're not supposed to EAT the pawns! Geeze.

 

I've been in there many times ... and agree that the death-type cases should be treated first.

The only sidebar ...
In 8th grade, I had a terrible side-stich. My mom (a nurse) told me to suck it up, so I continued through the day. At night time, I could not lay down, the pain was so great. We went to the ER. I was nauseated and chilled at that point. Unfortunatley, the South Side knife and gun club (south chicago street gangs) had just thrown a party, and they were literally carrying their wounded into the ER.

I waited 4 hours to even see a doctor. By the time they got to me, my appendix was about to burst, the result of which could have been fatal. As it was, the normally 1/2 hour procedure took 3 hours because of complications from waiting.

Now, would it have been fair for me to die because the street thugs had "more obvious" wounds?

 

My one and only time in an emergency room was a couple of years ago. I had been feeling a pressure and tightness in my chest for an hour or so. While I had no prior heart problems, I was worried that I was having a heart attack, so I went to emergency. Apparently, if there is a possible heart attack situation, that takes priority over anything else, because I was admitted immediately. Well, it seems that the symptoms of a heart attack can be very similar to another, not quite so serious ailment which I had also never had. Yes, I turns out that I had been put on the fast track because I had – heartburn . So my feelings here are mixed. It was certainly nice to get in right away, but it was embarrassing that it was over a stupid case of heartburn. However, it was better than the alternative – if it really had been a heart attack, and I was put on a waiting list, the outcome could have been serious.

 

You shouldn't be embarrassed. About half the time, chest pain turns out to be no big deal. But that's why we would take you back immediately; the faster we can rule out a heart attack, the better. We can't take the chance that you're having heartburn or whatever and leave you in the waiting room when you actually are having a heart attack. If you are having a real heart attack, it can kill you in less than a minute. So once you're back there and deemed okay, out you go, or at the very least you'll be monitored for an hour or so to be sure.

 

Death Rabbit, you're right, of course. One of the big reasons people avoid going to the hospital is that they think whatever symptoms they are experiencing are no big deal. In many cases (such as mine), that turns out to be the case, but in other cases (eg. Mathetais), the opposite is true.

Better safe than sorry.

 

@ Splunge

Let me share with you two examples of typical ER patients.

One night when I was working, a man was being rushed in to the ER in a wheelchair by his wife. This man had to be 40 or so, and was screaming and crying like a little girl. He was irate and being a total impatient jerk, and demanded to be admitted immediately. I tried to ask what was wrong and he snapped "Just get me back now, you stupid little faggot!" Resisting the urge to cave his face in, I replied "Sir, I can't bring you back until you tell me what's wrong." He just grumbled about how much pain he was in, and said his hand was injured. I had a nurse come out to look at him, and as it turns out, the man had an ingrown fingernail. When the nurse told him to take a seat, he yelled at her, told her he was going to sue, stood up out of the wheelchair, walked over to the waiting area and sat down. What a pansy.

Needless to say, his whiny ass took a seat.

**Warning - the next example is a bit gruesome.**

Another time, a man walked in, mid twenties, and calmly asked how long the wait was. I told him that non-emergencies would be about 20 minutes, not too long. I then asked what was the problem, and he said "Well, I cut my hand." I was jotting down his name, then asked how he did it. "Oh, I got a little pissed off and punched through a car door window." "Yikes," I said, "is it a big cut? Let me see..." He then said, with a straight face, "I'm not sure, what do you think?" He held up his right hand, dripping with blood. You know the fleshy part of your hand on the edge between your pinky and your wrist? He'd sliced compelety through it, right down to the bone, and the loose skin flopped over like a rabbit's ear. There were 2 or 3 pieces of glass still stuck to his knuckles. Amazingly, I didn't pass out.

Needless to say, he went back... tout suite.

These are two fairly extreme examples, but you get the point. The moral of these two stories is there are people who should feel ridiculous and just calm down, and there are those who are too stupid/proud/stubborn to know they're seriously injured or ill.

If you're not sure which one you are, call your doctor before going in. Describe your symptoms as best you can, and ask what he thinks. But don't call the ER. They'll usually tell you to come in anyway, because they aren't allowed to diagnose over the phone. Or if you know someone in the medical field, call them up and see what they think. Otherwise, it's always best to just go in and get checked out.

 

Excellent words of advice. But Texas must be really desperate for emergency room personnel if they have to use web designers (which, IIRC, is what you are) to do triage.

Edit: re your next post - oops; missed that

[ August 11, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

True, but...from my first post:

That was amost 4 years ago.

 

when I went to the ER I went by ambulance and was rushed straight in. All I saw was the ceiling, until they finally released me seven hours later. I don't think they'd tell me to sit in the waiting room while my heart raced at 245 beats per minute.

And yet, they do make some people wait when they really should be getting treated. I don't get it, isn't the point of the ER to save people's lives when they're in danger? A broken arm doesn't warrant immediate care as much as an asthma attack or heart attack.

 

I went when I was about 7 and my brother pushed me down the stairs, and have also been for the usual millions times to deal with bumps to the head for my son

As far as I know, hospitals operate a triage system where they have 1. Emergencies (like near death) 2. Not so emergencies (broken bones etc) and 3. Shouldn't have bothered to come (headache, flu)

 

I've been 5 times: twice for me, and once each for my husband, mother, and son. IIRC, the delays we experienced were due to volume and patient prioritization - nothing inappropriate. The longest wait was 4 hours (11 pm to 3 am) when my son had a full-body case of hives. I wouldn't have taken him to the ER if he weren't also complaining of a headache. Kids that small don't get headaches unless something is really wrong.

BTW, let me say something I haven't seen in this thread yet: Kitrax, I'm glad to hear that you're OK, and I hope it doesn't happen again!

Sheesh, folks, talk about priorities...