No question about it, no one is immune, "to err is human". Also true that assessing performance of tasks requiring complex judgement is itself error prone. Credentials alone are an insufficient baseline. So for all kinds of roles auditing mechanisms are necessary to monitor performance. And truly responsible professionals don't object to quality assurance measures, in fact they want to know if their performance declines in some respect.
In my observation it's problematic when rules become intrusive, overly restrictive, or needlessly punitive. At that point monitoring no longer serves its nominal purpose. There's a proper balance that's minimally adversarial, making it work requires mutual respect and constrained interaction between professionals and reviewers.
I think that's the source of a significant share of the problems in our health care systems. Way too much energy is wasted on battling phantoms. Not sure how the trends can be reversed. Best advice to patients is to make sure to strongly advocate for themselves. I know both sides as doctor and patient, I know how big a challenge it can be getting what we need despite layers of roadblocks and potholes on the path.
In my observation it's problematic when rules become intrusive, overly restrictive, or needlessly punitive. At that point monitoring no longer serves its nominal purpose. There's a proper balance that's minimally adversarial, making it work requires mutual respect and constrained interaction between professionals and reviewers.
I think that's the source of a significant share of the problems in our health care systems. Way too much energy is wasted on battling phantoms. Not sure how the trends can be reversed. Best advice to patients is to make sure to strongly advocate for themselves. I know both sides as doctor and patient, I know how big a challenge it can be getting what we need despite layers of roadblocks and potholes on the path.