[Newbiesaukee]

I have avoided commenting on this thread because the issue of rating hospitals and health care is so very complicated. First of all, any one person's experience is of very little help in deciding what is generally true. This does not mean that an individual's experience isn't true, it just isn't helpful.

As a number of people have pointed out, a major problem is deciding what is important...outcome,safety,convenience,cost,mortal ity, etc. An obvious example of this problem: if you rate cardiac care on the basis of how many people die, then the best hospitals may have the higher death rate because they get the sickest people. The US news poll mentioned above is, to a large extent, a popularity contest. I say that even though I did most of my training at the Hospital ranked no. 1 for 21 years before being displaced by Mass General. I think that CR tries to do an honest job...but unless you really understand how the hospitals are ranked, you really cannot make an informed evaluation. Someone said the CR does a good job with autos, and it does. However, styling is really important to me when I buy a car and this is not really considered by CR .
Is it hopeless? No, and it is necessary that we do try to evaluate the quality of care; it is just a very difficult task.

A last point. When I was working, patients often asked me which was the best hospital. My answer was..." it depends." If I needed a simple procedure, then I would go to the most convenient, friendly local hospital with the most caring staff. On the other hand, if I had a rare condition and only one physician in the world had experience with it, I would go to him/her regardless of convenience,expense,obnoxious personality, etc. Finally, there is really no best hospital; it really depends on what you have and what you need.

There is a lot more, but my wife says I am ranting. Probably...but this is more important than the Canada Geese p@@p I usually complain about.