Reply
Sat 20 Aug, 2011 08:16 pm
Context:
I trained at major American teaching hospitals such as Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital, University of Vermont Medical Center and Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, each of which offered what we believed to be the best burn treatments in the world. We were confident in the 1980’s that no one took better care of burn patients than we did. Our burn patients were treated in technologically endowed surgical suites, given potent double anti-biotic intravenous protocols along with topical silver-impregnated cold cream, all this administered under utterly sterile conditions in isolation suites and, of course, costing enormous sums of money. Our goals were, in retrospect, quite humble: keep the patients alive, reduce their pain, control their infection, and perform any surgery necessary to maximize their cosmetic and functional recovery. Typically, the majority of our patients left our burn units horribly scarred yet appreciative of our efforts.
Not exactly. Protocol is used very narrowly in medicine, and in science in general. It means a specific, detailed and explicit plan for a procedure (in both science and medicine, it can also me such a plan for an experiment). So, in the case of these hospitals, they all had protocols for treating burn patients. They all had specific, detailed and explicit plans for how to treat the patients.
Setanta is right. In medical jargon, a 'protocol' is a rigidly prescribed 'procedure' from which one may not deviate.
It's kind of like 'Simon says.'