Replies

Another point is that if rules were relaxed so that volunteers could help care for the needy in hospitals - trained of course - to take care of more mundane tasks, this would reduce costs.

While I see some problems with the overall goal being realized in this manner, something like that might actually be somewhat of a help on some patients. I need to qualify that limited approval though. Keeping the patient comforted, attended, and supplied with water, ice, whatever... could be helpful. I am not comfortable with it taking place in a hospital setting. If it were an extended care facility, perhaps so. There are problems with it. Family members and friends, I'm on board. Others? I'm not a big fan.

Sadly, you really to have to fear your 'angel of death' situation, where an unknown unlicensed person comes in and gains one on one access to the patient while others are going about their work elseswhere. There's a reason why only approved staff members can touch patients even in hospitals. Those that can have been vetted, trained, licensed, and have a lot to lose if they don't conduct themselves in a reasoned mannor. And hospitals being the deep pockets of choice when something goes wrong, I don't think your idea holds up well on these issues. It doesn't end there though, and I think other issues might make more sense than this to you. Lets see.

There is so much freaking legal redtape about everything that it makes costs skyrocket.

I agree with this and it must be reduced. Still, if it's your mom and something goes wrong, you want a paper trail that is long, broad, and deep. If it's somebody else's mom, not so much. This isn't a dig. It's human nature. It's just the way it is. Still, quite a bit of what takes place today inhibits nursing time/attention to/with the actual patient. Hospitals are continually trying to address this problem. Here's your biggest hospital payroll asset related to hands on care, and they spend a big chunk of their time on charting and other matters away from their patients. (see: "physician note" later down)

I bet all kind of volunteers woulds be thrilled to help care for the sick and helpless.

There are very robust volunteer programs at most hospitals. Those volunteers are used for porter, delivery, and other non-hands on patient tasks. They also serve in gift shops and thrift shops connected to the facility. They provide thousands perhaps tens of thousands of hours in their respective hospitals. They aren't facilitating eating and drinking by the patients. They aren't changing bandages or caring for wounds. They don't touch patients or even come into contact with them as a general rule, unless it's in association with a dog-therapy program.

I bet groups would even form just for the purpose.

Actually, the volunteer directors for hospitals across this nation have robust programs with a core group of dedicated service to others oriented people. These are salt of the earth people. Even so, they are limited as to what they can actually do inside a hospital.

What you are trying to facilitate, is reducing the cost of keeping comatose patients alive. The real costs aren't something that volunteers are going to be able to impact, at least to my way of thinking.

Costs are related to services rendered, and they probably fall under some specific Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs. A term that may no longer be in vogue for what I am addressing. Something has taken it's place if that is the case.) Insurers and the government have a whole list of services they cover. These are diagnostic related services. If a person is in the hospital for anything from maternity to open heart surgery, the government and the insurance companies have a specific list of things that will be covered, and what fees will be advanced to pay for them.

For a comatose patient, here are some of the things they might need.

1. A bed, the cost of housing the patient (as accute as is required) and the nursing time associated with the type of patient
2. Lab work to make sure nutrition and blood level targets are being hit
3. A nutrionist to evaluate the patient and make recommendations
4. The actual nutritional supplements to keep the patient healthy
5. Medication that would be needed to keep this patient stablized
6. A physical therapist
7. A wound care specialist
8. An I. V. specialist
9. Life sign monitering
10. Clinical Pharmacist
11. Central supply services
12. Housekeeping
13. A few other things I may have left out...

(Physician note: You'll note I left out the physician, but they are generally a separate fee not associated with the hospital.)

These are the things that cost big sums of money. Anything else is incidental. Anything else is probably taken care of by volunteers already, if possible.

And these costly things above not being able to be impacted by a volunteer, it seems to me the idea that voluneers could make more of an impact on costs than they do, sort of evaporates. It's a reasoned idea, and some of it is already taking place. I'm not convinced more could have the impact both you and I would like to see.

One thing that might help, is some sort of a national facility that would take any case like this that came up. With every person (extended time frame of course) on life-support in the nation in one place, it would seem the latest in state of the art care could be given, hands on observations could be made on a larger body of patients, and better ways to manage these patients could probably become evident.

You see one person like this each day, you can't note similarities or differences in success rates with other patients. If you see a body of twenty or more patients like this per day, the comparisons alone begin to provide clues to what works best and worst.

A center like this could become a good focal point for folks who like to donate for specific causes, reducing the burden on families, the insurance industry, and the government.

Just some thoughts on it. Thanks for the note.