My wife was admitted a few days back for a C-section Surgery, and praise God we were blessed with a beautiful boy, and now we have been discharged and back home.
Our experience at this hospital though was not so much as peaceful at all, though.
Our recent experience at this prestigious self-proclaimed hospital felt we need to share so that others are aware of what will come their way.
This review and feedback are in no way to attract attention to our woes but think well before you plan
My wife was admitted a few days back for a C-section Surgery, and praise God we were blessed with a beautiful boy, and now we have been discharged and back home.
Our experience at this hospital though was not so much as peaceful at all, though.
- We were moved to the Labour Theatre Area 'Being Mom' zone, spent the night, the wife was taken to the Labour Theatre in the morning, by afternoon we were out from there, and back into the ward.
- The Doctors and Nurses have to learn a lot from the housekeeping staff. They neither greet nor give way to the patient
- Without the consent of the patient or the guardian, many unnecessary gloves, pads, wipes and medicines are bought in excess,
- Excess medicines and accessories
- The hospital canteen just served Dosa, Upma and Sheera for breakfast on all days, while the patient has been prescribed not to have those. Even plain bread wasn't available with
- The fan in the private rooms, is only meant for the patient, the attendee has to die in heat in the corner of the room.
- The doctors, nurses and the staff have no courtesy of knocking the door and waiting for a response. Many times male nurse and staff have entered
- When asked to explain the bill, the staff just keeps you sending from one person to
- Even though the child and the mother are in the same room, and the room is cleaned the same way for any other patient, the child and the mother are separately billed, and they
- If the doctor has visited the ward, and you are not present in the room, coz you are in NICU or LT, you are still billed for that visit, which I had to fight for explanation and then they deducted it.
- As a patient you better see
- Keep a tab on the medicines being used, and the bottles of meds/saline being
- A usual tendency of patients is to leave the extra
- There is no track of the gloves being used, the last day you will find a huge dump of gloves in your medicine bags.
The only compliments we would like to give is to the housekeeping staff, the "Anna's" and the "Akka's", who toiled tirelessly but still had a
The next would be very few staff and especially the interns who were much better and helpful than that nurses.
Our experience was definitely not great, but we hope by sharing this review
More from For later read
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".