I would expect them to be good enough to prevent "obvious" deaths-from-failed-procedures, but deliver a slightly lower quality of care, so that if out of 100 very seriously ill people 50 survived during normal operation, this would turn into e.g. 49.
All of this without the person obviously dying due to the alternative procedures - just e.g. the doctor saw the patient less often and didn't notice some condition as early as they would have under normal procedures.
Would you consider this assumption to be wrong? (I am a layperson, not familiar with how hospitals work except from being a patient.)
All of this without the person obviously dying due to the alternative procedures - just e.g. the doctor saw the patient less often and didn't notice some condition as early as they would have under normal procedures.
Would you consider this assumption to be wrong? (I am a layperson, not familiar with how hospitals work except from being a patient.)