I have to wonder, though... The checklist becomes held as the gold standard of care: it's infallible, therefore I must be doing it right, and by following the checklist to the letter, I'm doing everything I need to be doing for this patient. But is there something the checklist forgot? Is the checklist up-to-date with the latest research? Nothing against the practice in general, but there was no mention of safeguards against practicioners getting railroaded into rigid lines of thinking.
(Off topic, but did anyone else notice the use of an umlaut in "cooperate" on page 8 of the New Yorker story?)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
Date: 2008-02-16 04:07 am (UTC)The checklist becomes held as the gold standard of care: it's infallible, therefore I must be doing it right, and by following the checklist to the letter, I'm doing everything I need to be doing for this patient.
But is there something the checklist forgot? Is the checklist up-to-date with the latest research?
Nothing against the practice in general, but there was no mention of safeguards against practicioners getting railroaded into rigid lines of thinking.
(Off topic, but did anyone else notice the use of an umlaut in "cooperate" on page 8 of the New Yorker story?)