Falsification is FRAUD
Common sense tells us that it is proper to investigate the person who commits the crime instead of the victim. In this hospital in Vallejo, California, the victim was the one investigated ! The Internist who was in charge of the old lady was investigated instead of the Surgeon who falsified the hospital record. The Internist was the victim of fraud. For those who are not familiar with how a hospital works, this is how it goes:
In most XXX General Hospitals, whether for profit or non-profit, there is a governing body that runs the hospital. It is called the Board of Directors. These people are made up of doctors and non-doctors. It used to be that they are all doctors in the community and if they don't like a doctor, he is out of there.
In most hospitals there is an Administrator. He is the Spokesperson or spokesman of the board of the directors. Another group of people in a hospital is called the Medical Staff. This is made up of Doctors who practice in the hospital. This also includes dentists and other professionals.
The Medical Staff is a body or an organization. It has its own by-laws; it has elected officers who run the organization. One of the functions of a medical staff is to see to it that doctors act properly, there is of course Medical Ethics and that doctors perform according to certain standards in Medicine. If a doctor does not act properly or does horrible things to his/her patients, or does not meet certain standards, he is subjected to disciplinary actions. The medical term for this is Peer Review or the doctors performance is subjected to a review by his peers. This could be done with good intention and sometimes, bad. In other words, Peer Review can be abused by other doctors; it can be used in retaliation or vengeance against another doctor. In this particular case, the hospital and Medical Staff investigated the victim of fraud instead of the doctor who committed the fraud. It should be pointed out that the Board of Directors, Administrator, and Medical Staff work together like a well-oiled machine. The Medical Staff says yes, the administrator agrees, and the Board of Directors gives its stamp of approval. The Medical Staff acts through its officers. This group of officers is collectively called the Medical Executive Committee.
During the investigation of this victim of fraud, the Internist, notices of investigation was sent to the doctor from the President of the Medical Staff. He is sometimes called the Chief of Staff. The other officers are Vice-Chief, Secretary, and others. Investigation of any kind must be fair or should be fair, whether it is done to a doctor, janitor or any person. The decision to investigate the internist is most unfair because he was the victim of the perpetrator. Why did the Medical Staff not investigate the surgeon who committed the fraud ?
One concept expressed by some people is the so-called "Old Boys Club ". The Medical Executive committee is like an " Old Boys Club ". There is a similar expression in Tagalog: "Tayo--tayo lang " or " Atin lang ito ". If you are part of the club, they like you; even if you make a mistake, they cover-up for you. They retaliate against the victim, kick him out of the hospital and their friend is home free. The technical term for being able to practice medicine in a hospital is " having Hospital Privileges ". When the executive committee of the Medical Staff removes your hospital privileges, that is the same as kicking you out of the hospital. That is what they did to the internist.
Another aspect that screams of unfairness that was done to the internist went like this:
An official letter from the Chief of Staff was sent to the internist. It stated that all his patients admitted during a certain period ( six months ) will be included in the investigation. Another technical term for investigation is " monitoring period". They monitored the patients admitted to the hospital by the internist during that six-month period. The intent was good but what happened was bad. Patients hospitalized by the internist before and after that six-month period were included in the investigation by a panel or group of investigators.
Remember that the letter from the chief of staff ( I have many copies ) states that there is a specific number of months where patients admitted will be taken from ( patients admitted and hospitalized in that period ).
Here is the ugly, despicable part: The Medical Staff Executive Committee included a patient who died one year before the investigation.
How could that patient be admitted and hospitalized and have a monitoring report by a panel of Doctors when she was already dead one year before ?
First of all, that investigation or monitoring report is false or a fraud because the patient was already dead during the six-month period that the investigation was done. How can she be hospitalized ?
The letter of the chief of staff indicated a rule or a parameter or what you might call a playing field like in baseball or football. What is unfair here is that the Medical Staff Executive Committee included several patients outside of the investigation or monitoring period. Another way of saying it is they want to play outside of the designated playing field or ball park.
They also violated their own rule or regulation. They did not care. They just wanted to get rid of the Internist.
Another unfairness during the so-called investigation or monitoring period is that they did not investigate or monitor all the patients admitted or hospitalized by the internist during the six-month period. They chose or selected only certain cases ( I have the copies ). The technical term for that is : " No random sampling ". The common term for it is : Discrimination.
In the beginning, the letter of the chief of staff or designated person states that all patients admitted or hospitalized by the internist during that six-month period will be monitored or investigated. They did not. I have copies of the patients who were hospitalized during that six month period that were not included in the total list of patients. I also have copies of the list of patients who were investigated. That is most unfair.
Random sampling is very important in conducting a fair or impartial investigation. It is actually a principle in Mathematics. If you make a Statistical study and you do not do a random sampling, your study is biased or not fair.
A good example that can be understood easily is this: a young lady put ten apples in a bag or a container. Then she asks: "What is the chance of getting an orange or a grape from that same bag ?" The answer is None or Zero because she only put apples in the bag. That is exactly what happened during the investigation of the Internist. They selected only certain cases to be included in the investigation or monitoring period. They were supposedly "bad apples ".
What the Medical Staff Executive Committee forgot is that when you do something deceitful, a lie, or mischief or unfairness, that is an abomination to the Lord. I do not think they know the Lord or that he even exists; that the Lord protects or helps the oppressed; and that he said: " Vengeance is mine ". What you have read so far is nothing compared to the next series of lying, deceits, falsities and frauds done by the doctors in Vallejo, California. Since we are talking about investigation or monitoring of patients admitted or hospitalized by the internist, it would be nice to know what they found. I have many copies of the result of the investigation.
© Copyright 2002-2004 ZambalesForum (ZF) discussion group members. All rights reserved. Disclaimers
Our Cover Page | A Message from John Reyes | Zambales | Table of Contents | Palayok ni Neneng | Sistehan | Bahay ng Duwende | Doon po sa Amin | Mga Kuwentong Cowboy | Pista sa Nayon | The Way We Were | Links | Guest book