Clearly they did it for one patient and it was a good result. Doctors and staff generally care about their patients and given there’s plausible scientific reasoning why this worked, they’d help figure out how to make staffing work for 3-5 more patients for a limited time. Additionally, positive results like this start to travel by word of mouth so if this is successful it means more funding for the hospital and more patients seeking care from them. That’s how it should work but bureaucracy of medical care is typically resistant to things like that.
In any medical system in the world, you'll find that staff scheduling is the singular, most important constraint for patient care.
That they did it for one patient does not mean that they can do it for everyone - especially when it's not clear if it actually helped, due to a small sample size.
I didn’t say everyone. I said do it as a pilot for 2-5 more patients so that you don’t write it off as a fluke, then give a talk at a conference. If you’re having good results then you can talk with the administrators how to make this a more serious program if there’s actually good results and desire to scale this up.
Nowhere do you start from 0 and go to 100. You take baby steps scaling up to see if the results hold.
