Scientific Promise and Practical Benefits

A major strength of brain organoid research is its potential to improve our understanding of neurological and psychiatric conditions. Researchers can generate organoids from people with known genetic mutations to study how specific genes affect early brain development. This method has been used to study conditions like autism spectrum disorders, epilepsy, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. It helps scientists find cell abnormalities that might not show up in animal studies.

Brain organoids are also useful for drug discovery and safety testing. Many treatments that work in animal models do not succeed in humans, especially for brain disorders. Organoids give scientists a human-based way to test how drugs affect neural cells. This can help spot toxic effects or benefits earlier, potentially lowering the risk of expensive late-stage failures and reducing unnecessary testing on people.

Limitations, Misconceptions, and Ethical Concerns

Even though brain organoids show promise, they have important limitations that are sometimes missed in public discussions. They lack blood vessels, immune cells, and sensory input, all of which are needed for normal brain function. Because they lack a vascular system, organoids obtain oxygen and nutrients only by diffusion, which limits how large and mature they can become. Most organoids end up looking like early fetal brain tissue, not fully developed brains. Does the appearance of something mean it will have the same abilities?

Variability is another challenge. Organoids grown in different laboratories — or even within the same lab — can vary in structure and cellular composition. This makes standardization difficult and complicates the interpretation of results. Additionally, reports of electrical activity within organoids have sometimes been mischaracterized as evidence of consciousness. Most neuroscientists agree that current organoids do not possess awareness, sensation, or thought, but the debate highlights broader uncertainties about how consciousness arises in biological systems.

As the science has advanced, ethical questions have also increased. There are concerns about informed consent when donor cells are used to make neural tissue, especially if donors did not know this could happen. Other worries come up when human organoids are put into animals, which raises questions about species boundaries and oversight. Although these experiments are closely regulated, many ethicists say clearer rules are needed as the technology develops.

Future Directions and Responsible Progress

Researchers are now trying to make brain organoids more realistic and useful. They are working on adding vascular-like systems, combining different organoid types to study how brain regions interact, and making results more consistent between labs. These improvements could help us better understand complex brain disorders and lead to more personalized treatments.

At the same time, ethical guidelines are changing to keep up with new scientific advances. Many experts say that as organoid research moves forward, it should be matched by openness, oversight from different fields, and regular public involvement. Brain organoids are not miracle cures or major threats; they are powerful but imperfect tools that can help neuroscience when used carefully. The future of this research will depend on both technical progress and a strong focus on ethics and public trust.

If all of this sounds like something from a Frankenstein movie, that would be one approach to take, but it isn’t realistic. We are only at the very beginning of understanding what the potential and the problems involved are for us. The research holds great promise, but it also requires informed restrictions that will not prevent advances.

The post Brain Organoids: Promise, Limits, and What Comes Next appeared first on Medika Life.

It is inevitable that some people will die who get admitted to the ICU. It is always sad, and it makes us sad as critical care clinicians. It is reality, nonetheless. During the pandemic, it seemed that everyone who was admitted with COVID-19 ended up dying, and thank God, that was not the case at all.

Still, when it is clear that I will not win the battle against critical illness; when it is clear that my patient will die, then my fight changes to ensure that my patient does not die an ignoble death.

What is an ignoble death? It is one without dignity; it is a death not on the patient’s own terms; it is death of pain, distress, anguish, and suffering. No one deserves this kind of death.

None of us knows when we are going to die. None of us knows where we are going to die. None of us knows how we are going to die. Those things are, in fact, unknowable and beyond our control.

What we can control, however, are the terms of our own death. When we finally face death, how will we die? Will we die on machines? Will we die having the healthcare team pounding on our chests and shocking our hearts? Will we die having someone put a tube down my throat? Will my family be there?

We can choose the answers to those questions. We must choose the answers to those questions and make those answers known to our doctors and those taking care of us in the healthcare setting. It is absolutely essential – and dare I say it – critical that we make the answers to these questions known. Everyone deserves a death on their own terms.

And so, as a critical care specialist, I try my hardest to learn what the terms of my patients’ death are, and I fight my hardest – I battle to the fullest – to make sure that my patients die on their own terms. I battle to the fullest to make sure that my patients have a good death, one that is not ignoble: a death without pain, without suffering, without anguish, and on my patients’ terms.

During the COVID pandemic, it seemed that all we did for those afflicted with COVID was not curing the illness, but simply providing a good death. It did cause us a lot of anguish, because we are in the business of cure and healing. At the same time, there is nothing ignoble about providing a good death. If that’s all we can do for our patient, we have done our patient a tremendous amount of good.

Listen to the podcast episode about this topic here: https://healthcaremusings.substack.com/p/the-battle-against-an-ignoble-death

The post The Battle Against An Ignoble Death appeared first on Medika Life.

I planned, and then God laughed.

The first flight got delayed initially because the incoming flight was delayed. Then, at the gate, when I still had hope to leave relatively soon, the plane had a maintenance issue and we had to change planes. 

Everyone was frustrated, and I must admit so was I. This whole delay disrupted my entire day, and I was already on a tight schedule because I was flying home the same day. I had to miss some meetings. 

Yet, the reason for the delay was that there was a maintenance issue, and this maintenance issue could place the safety of the passengers and crew at risk. This was a nonstarter. 

Better be late than risk the safety of people on an airline. Better cancel the flight altogether, like for bad weather, than risk loss of life and limb. Better I miss a meeting than never show up to that meeting or go back home ever again. 

Yes, it can frustrate passengers, and the airlines do have an obligation to help their passengers (their clients essentially) when their travel plans get disrupted. Still, safety is absolutely essential and no shortcuts can ever be made. 

Would that Healthcare have the same attitude. The airline industry has some of the best safety records in the world. It may not be as well known that it is much safer to fly than drive. This is because the airline industry never compromises on safety. We need to be the same in Healthcare. 

There are thousands upon thousands of medical errors that occur each and every year. Many of these errors can cause significant harm to patients. And when these errors are examined critically, too often the safety checks that were in place were bypassed in order to save time or assuage an angry or upset patient or family member.

This should never occur. 

Yes, I get very frustrated with the stops and safety checks my EMR places in front of me (that dreaded stop sign in Epic gives me PTSD). And sometimes it doesn’t make sense from a clinical perspective. 

But they are in place for the sake of my patients’ safety. That should make me patient with them. What if that patient who gets harmed by a medical error is my family? What if they are my child? I would be devastated to learn that safety measures were bypassed. 

Yes, flight delays can be terribly frustrating – especially those for maintenance and safety issues (why didn’t they figure them out sooner?). But they are there to make sure we get to our destinations safely. If we die because of a safety issue that was ignored, no vacation or work meetings will occur…permanently. In fact, I was able to write this article because my flight delay gave me time to reflect about this. 

At the same time, every time I travel I pray to the Lord this: “Lord, take me to my destination safely and on time.” Most of the time, it goes without a hitch. However, the “safely” part comes will always come at the expense of the “on time” part. I thank God for that, and we need to be better at it with the patients entrusted to our care. 

The post Just Like the Airline Industry, Safety Has to be Non-negotiable in Healthcare appeared first on Medika Life.

Additionally, in a recent AT&T survey, business leaders in healthcare reached a similar conclusion. The survey found that the lack of a unified strategy was the dominant challenge in digital transformation. This strategic obstacle was five times greater than commonly cited examples, such as “required expertise,” and about 10 times greater than an “ROI justification” for the expense. In other words, organizations may have the resources to drive change, but fail to have a coherent strategy to implement digital transformation.

Even when organizations can overcome these hurdles, one major challenge remains: focus and prioritization. In many boardrooms, executives are debating overwhelming lists of potential generative AI investments, only to deem them incomplete or outdated given the dizzying pace of innovation. These protracted debates are a waste of precious organizational energy—and time.

The Rudderless Ship: A Metaphor for Healthcare’s Digital Journey

The complexity and lack of strategic coherence in healthcare’s digital transformation can be likened to a ship without a rudder. It may be powered by the finest engines and loaded with the most sophisticated technology, but without a rudder to steer, the vessel is aimless, unable to reach its desired destination. The healthcare industry is a vessel brimming with technological promise but adrift in a sea of strategic ambiguity.  And this path is complicated by the turbulent currents of cost, reimbursement, adoption and clinical validation.

The Philosophical Imperative of Innovation

The path forward is critical, but innovation is the fruit of strategic thinking, and this critical process and path can be a significant obstacle in driving critical improvements to our healthcare systems. It’s not merely a matter of technology or investment; it’s a profound philosophical challenge that requires an integration of ethics, creativity, and humanistic understanding.

In the world of healthcare, where lives are at stake, the diffusion of innovation into complex systems is more than a commercial or technological endeavor—it’s a moral and societal one. An approach that intertwines technology, AI, and human empathy is essential for aligning the path of innovation with the needs of patients and the healthcare community.

Navigating the Sea of Change

Navigating the intricate waters of healthcare digital adoption requires more than cutting-edge technology. It requires a compass of strategic wisdom, a rudder of cohesive planning, and the winds of philosophical insight to guide the way.

As the rate of technological change accelerates, a well-defined, unified strategy for digital transformation is not merely a wise business decision; it is an imperative for healthcare’s future. Innovation is not just the tool but the very art of reimagining what healthcare can be. This is the odyssey we must embark upon—an imperative that transcends technology to explore the profound interconnections between the human spirit, the art of healing, and the science of the future.

By seizing the helm and steering with intention and insight, healthcare can find its way. The question that looms is not only if we have the technological capability but whether we have the philosophical depth and the human wisdom to chart the course. Only then can we truly transform healthcare and reach the shores of a new era.

The post Is Healthcare Digital Innovation Adrift Without a Rudder? appeared first on Medika Life.

I won’t lie: I do miss it. In a lot of parties to which I go, and restaurants in which I’m dining, there are not many alternatives to diet soda other than water (or perhaps iced tea). Still, I remain steadfast in my abstinence from diet soda

This is not because of the recent World Health Organization classification of aspartame, a ubiquitous nonnutritive sweetener (and the one used in Diet Coke) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” I was never worried about getting cancer from an artificial sweetener. I was concerned, however, of the effect of aspartame on my microbiome.

The microbiome is the collection of billions of bacteria that reside normally in our gut. In the past, it was not believed to have much of an effect on human health and well-being, although it is known that gut bacteria are mainly responsible for the production of vitamin K, which is critical to the formation of the clotting factors in our blood. It is also known that it is the gut bacteria’s metabolism of lactose, in lactose intolerant individuals, that is causing the discomfort when dairy products are consumed.

Recent research, however, has shown that the Microbiome exerts a real effect on our health, such as metabolism of glucose and glucose intolerance, along with appetite and possibly even weight gain. And, there may be even a link between the microbiome and our mental health. The research in this arena is only beginning. 

For me, I was concerned that the bacteria in my gut were consuming the aspartame I was drinking and adding to my coffee and tea, and that it was having an effect on my overall well-being. Recent research has confirmed my concern. 

Yet. the data are all over the place. There are studies that show no effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on glucose metabolism, and there are others that show consumption of artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. That said, there seems to be increasing evidence that the microbiome definitely interacts with the nonnutritive sweeteners we are consuming, and it may have an effect on our overall health.

Whether or not this can lead to cancer is unclear. Indeed, when the WHO declared aspartame “ possibly carcinogenic,” a related body indicated that a 150 pound individual can safely consume a 12 pack of Diet Coke without any risk. This is annoyingly confusing. 

All of that said, my own study of an N = 1 (that is, me) showed that the aspartame I was consuming did indeed have an effect on my health: when I stopped, I lost a little bit of weight. Now, I am consuming beverages containing Stevia, and I am adding Stevia to my coffee and tea for the most part.

Could later research shows that this is also detrimental? Of course. For now, it seems to be working for me, and that is what I am going with. And that is the main message we should take away.

Not everybody will be affected by nonnutritive sweeteners. Not everyone’s microbiome will be affected by these sweeteners. For some, it can be detrimental. For others, there could be no effect. The main thing is to assess how it affects us individually and make our own choices.

Sign up for Dr. Hassaballa’s Newsletter, Healthcare Musings, at www.healthcaremusings.com

The post Why I Stopped Drinking Diet Coke appeared first on Medika Life.

Advance Praise for the Book:

“Sometimes funny, sometimes heart wrenching, and always on the money, placing the patient first and foremost. Dr Hassaballa’s take on life in the ICU may be written for fellow doctors, but it provides a real life window into the joys, challenges and agonies of the ICU wards, experiences shared by the doctors, nurses, caregivers, patients and their families. A must read for new caregivers entering the ICU and a fantastic guide for families seeking to navigate the often daunting world of the ICU. I’d love to see this book on tables in every ICU waiting room across the country.”

Dr. Robert Turner
Founder, Medika Life


“Dr. Hesham Hassaballa brings so much more to the bedside than his medical expertise and skill – he brings his expansive heart and soul to the timeless mission of healing people who arrive at the ICU and gives hope to the families who wait for their recovery. “How Not to Kill Someone in the ICU is a masterful – transparent and transformative – must-read penned by someone who has dreamt of being a physician since childhood and now shoulders the responsibility to search out and speak to the healthcare system’s underlying illnesses. This is a breakthrough book – almost poetry – written by someone who knows what is at stake for all who seek to heal or hope for healing.”

Gil Bashe, Chair Global Health and Purpose, FINN Partners
Editor-in-Chief, Medika Life

The post Dr. Hassaballa’s Latest Book is Now Available: “How Not To Kill Someone in the ICU” appeared first on Medika Life.

In the past, brevity was lauded. In fact, I myself was praised by my colleagues for the brevity of my notes: they were short and to the point. Times have changed. Brevity can no longer suffice.

I recently wrote an appeal on a case where the insurance company denied a diagnosis of type II myocardial infarction because the doctor documented:

“Elevated troponin. Likely type 2.”

Now, every clinician understands what this means. Yet, the insurance company wrote in their denial that there is no such diagnosis as “Type 2” and denied the DRG, claiming that they therefore overpaid the hospital and were demanding a refund. It was so very obnoxious.

At the same time, the doctor in this case gave the insurance company the knife with which it stabbed the hospital in the back because he did not write two words: “myocardial infarction.”

I had a similar experience: an insurance company actually denied the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure in a kid who got intubated for cardiac arrest in his home. They had the audacity to claim that “airway protection,” which was the reason documented for why the kid had acute respiratory failure, is not a diagnosis. It was one of the most egregious denials I have ever appealed. Again, the clinicians in this case gave the insurance company the knife. Brevity beware.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services changed the documentation rules in January of this year, de-emphasizing history and examination and strongly emphasizing medical decision making. I lauded the changes.

Finally, I don’t have to worry about documenting silly, irrelevant things like a “review of systems,” and I can focus on what matters: what I feel is wrong with my patient and what I am doing about it. And brevity can no longer suffice.

No longer can we say: “UTI. Continue antibiotics.” No longer can we say: “Elevated troponin, likely type 2.” No longer can we say, “Patient intubated for airway protection.”

We need to answer the questions: how is the UTI? Is it better? Is it worse? How is the patient responding to treatment? Why aren’t you discharging the patient when the vital signs and labs all look good? Why are you admitting the patient to the hospital in the first place?

We need to write, “Elevated troponin is most likely secondary to type 2 myocardial infarction”; we need to write, “Patient intubated and placed on invasive mechanical ventilation due to the inability to maintain an open airway due to acute metabolic encephalopathy.” Brevity in our documentation can no longer be best practice.

When I give lectures to clinician trainees and practicing clinicians alike, I say the same thing: if your documentation is poor, prepare to have a difficult time. This is true when doing a Peer-to-Peer discussion with an insurance company Medical Director, or when appealing a denial, or most distressingly, in a medical malpractice case. Poor documentation hurts everyone involved, and it can even compromise patient care.

Will this likely take more of our time? Yes. And it is essential that we take this extra time to make our documentation as robust as possible. CMS has tried to help by changing the rules so we can take more time on medical decision making. We need to take advantage of this. We can no longer afford to have brief notes that say nothing, just like we absolutely can no longer afford to have a note that is 15 pages long and also say nothing.

We need to up our documentation game to a whole new level. Brevity can no longer cut it, clinicians. Brevity beware.

The post From The Appeals Desk: Brevity Beware appeared first on Medika Life.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine continues to oppose the Sunshine Protection Act, which Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has reintroduced in the Senate. Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida also has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

The legislation proposes to establish permanent daylight saving time in the U.S. The AASM supports the elimination of the biannual time changes in March and November but is advocating for Congress to introduce legislation restoring permanent standard time.

They cited research showing the harmful effects of the change between Standard and Daylight Savings Time, and they advocated permanent standard time. So, if I understand it correctly, that would mean permanently having sunset at 7:30 PM or so in the summer in Chicago (the AASM is based in suburban Chicago).

Are you kidding me?!

The long sunny days are one of my favorite things of summer. I absolutely love the fact that the sun sets at 8:30 PM in summer. When I work day shifts, I go to work in the day and come home in the day. If I work nights, I go to work during the day and then the sun stays out for most of my shift. In Paris last summer, the sun set at 10:00 PM!!! This is awesome! Why would the AASM want more darkness, especially in the winter??

Yes, there have been harm associated with the biannual change in time. Yes, it may not go exactly with our circadian rhythm. But, modern society completely ignores the circadian rhythm. It is not like we sleep when it gets dark. No, we turn on the lights both inside and out. And, with permanent Standard Time, the sun will rise at 4:30 AM in Chicago. How could this be good for our sleep?

So, I am 100% for keeping the longer daylight savings time permanent, like the Sunshine Protection Act proposes. No more time changes, having to work longer shifts if you happen to work those nights in the hospital. No more darker winters.

Yes, in the winter, kids going to school in the dark can be dangerous. And I am confident we can adjust and make sure all are safe. But I can’t agree with having less daylight in the summer. Come on, Sleep Docs! Where is your sense of fun?

I sincerely hope and pray that this Sunday will the absolutely last time we change our clocks. I sincerely hope and pray that we will – finally – have permanent Daylight Savings Time. Long days, short nights are awesome.

Why would you want to take that away from us, AASM? Come on, Sleep Docs!

The post This Sleep Doctor Disagrees With AASM: Keep Daylight Savings Permanent appeared first on Medika Life.

Managing disease has become the well trodden path to providing those profits.

To paint pharma as the only black sheep in the healthcare family would however be grossly unfair, as insurers and other Shylock’s have smelled the blood in the water and have been circling and feeding for decades. If we however, as patients, represent the fish in the water, pharma is guilty of providing the worms industry bait their hooks with.

How many people reading this article can open their medicine cabinet and produce one or more drug they have been prescribed in the last decade that comes with a repeat prescription – for life! I’d hazard it would be more than half the readers. Healthcare is no longer trying cure you, and probably stopped trying decades ago. Right around the time the penny dropped.

A healthy, cured cow is no longer a cash cow. Long term management became the new catchphrase of medicine.

A change in tack

The mechanics that underpin this shift in care are incredibly transparent and from a physiological point of view, also simpler to manage. It is far easier interfering on a daily basis with the production of, say, excess stomach acid in someone who suffers from gastritis, than it is to address and correct the underlying cause of the excess acid. I should know, I take a daily dose of Omeprazole for exactly this.

While the package insert suggests the medication should not be used for longer than 10 days (covering the manufacturer) some doctors prescribe these for life. Who, I wonder, when the dust settles in the industry, will be held legally liable for off-label use. I’d suggest to the prescribing doctors that it wont be the manufacturers.

Almost every drug we now manufacture falls prey to off-label use or use way beyond its intended, approved and clinically trialed, prescribed use.

Aspirin is ingested daily by millions around the globe in the hopes it will offer some form of protection against cardiac events and clotting. Statins are prescribed for life, to control bad cholesterol and soften your arteries. Ozempic, a drug containing semaglutide to manage insulin in diabetics is now being used off-label for weight management. To keep the weight off, you’re obliged to use it for life.

How does Ozempic affect a healthy patient population that does not suffer with diabetes? No one knows, as the long term use of the drug has not been tested in this patient population. Why would you bother? To be clear, the doctor signing your script doesn’t have a clue either. In the cold light of day, he is taking an unethical medical risk prescribing an off-label drug to you, one you may very well require for life.

We know, and your doctor is all to well aware of this, that exercise and a healthy diet can potentially replace most of the drugs you pay for each month. Drugs that are supposed to buy you the time to implement healthy changes in your lifestyle are now being used to chain you to the wheel of never ending “health” dependency.

An expensive habit, with drugs like Ozempic retailing for around $1500 a shot. The price has skyrocketed as vanity has boosted demand for the drug, leaving patients with actual diabetes, who have a real need for the medicine, unable to find or afford it.

So ingrained has this “continued use” policy become, in both the minds of healthcare and patients, that even the vaccines we now manufacture, are subject to it. Booster shot after booster shot.

Problems abound

There are of course multiple and often serious consequences of practicing medicine this way, a few of which are outlined in brief below;

• Off-label use in medications are very rarely subjected to clinical trial, so even the prescribing doctor is unsure of how your continued use of a particular medicine is going to impact your health.
• You place organs like your kidneys and liver at increased risk by taking large amounts of medication.
• Patients are often prescribed additional medication to counter the effects of existing medication. This additional medication, is, of course, also for life. Patients can end up with shelves of pills.
• Often expensive, these medications can, and do, drain the savings of many elderly patients.
• This pill mill places unnecessary demands on healthcare insurers who drive up premiums, an action that has a direct knock-on effect on the cost of care.

The topic is far too complex for a short article like this to explore in any depth, and I would highly recommend reading a series by Stephen Schimpff Md on Medika. The ten articles examine the issues in far more depth.

Stemming the tide

The problem of creating a medication dependent population can only be affectively addressed at its point of origin. The doctors consulting room. While doctors themselves are not to blame for the “management mentality” that pervades healthcare, they do act as the point of origin. They are also, much like they patients they treat, victims of the system.

Ridiculous time constraints and pressures brought to bear on doctors by insurers and the healthcare system they are obliged to operate within, all lead to one inevitable result. Quick in – quick out, with patients receiving only cursory care. Diagnosis suffers as a result. Patients are also conditioned to expect that leaving the consultation without a prescription in hand equates to poor treatment.

Both doctors and patients need to be re-educated on the primary goal of healthcare. It is to deliver care that prevents or cures disease and manages health. Drugs, in most instances, are temporary fixes to allow for healthy lifestyle choices to restore wellbeing. Our bodies are capable of reinvigorating themselves if the damage is identified early and the causes addressed.

Medicating someone up the yazoo and essentially turning them into prescription junkies does not improve quality of life. In point of fact, it often worsens it. As long as we continue to accept the current healthcare status quo, our health as a global population will continue to decline.

The post Forever Medicated is the Future of Healthcare appeared first on Medika Life.

In the classic rat sleep deprivation trials, total sleep deprivation ended up killing the rats in 11-32 days. When the researchers deprived the rats of REM sleep, or commonly known as “dreaming sleep,” the rats also died, although they did survive for a longer time period, 16-54 days. Nevertheless, sleep deprivation is very detrimental, and when I was training as a sleep specialist, I learned about myriad health problems when people become sleep deprived.

So, when patients are admitted to the hospital, why do we wake them up in the early morning to draw blood tests? Yale University researchers studied this, and they found that nearly 40% of laboratory studies occurred between 4:00 AM and 6:59 AM:

The traditional thinking behind this is that, by the time the physicians and APPs come in to see their patients in the morning, usually at 7:00 AM, the blood tests are ready for them, and they can act on the findings of those blood tests to help care for the patients.

Yet, this begs the question: do we really need to get blood tests that early in the morning? Would care suffer significantly if those blood tests were drawn at, say, 8:00 AM? There should be enough time to act on any abnormal test results in the morning and before morning rounds. At my hospital, we round at 10:00 AM, and so if blood tests were drawn at 8:00 AM, they should be back by the time I round with the rest of the team.

As far as I can remember – and into today – “AM Labs” are usually drawn at 4:00 or 5:00 AM by default or even tradition. Unless the patient is comatose in the ICU, getting a blood test at 4:00 or 5:00 AM can disrupt the sleep of our patients, which can be very detrimental and can hinder their recovery from illness.

It can also precipitate delirium in our patients due to the sleep deprivation, the effects of which can also be very detrimental to the recovery of our patients. Moreover, it can also disrupt the sleep of the clinicians caring for those patients at night, who have to be awakened also at 4:30 or 5:00 AM to receive notification of critical results and act on them. This sleep disruption can also affect clinician well-being and burnout.

Good sleep is often the elusive treasure of a hospital stay. Many clinicians chuckle when they hear this, but it really is no laughing matter. It may be time to rethink the necessity of getting blood tests so early in the morning, so that our patients can actually get a good night’s sleep and be well on their way to a good recovery from illness.

The post Are Early Morning Laboratory Studies Really Necessary in Hospitalized Patients? appeared first on Medika Life.