Quality of Care at King Hospital

It is acknowledged that problems exist at the Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital and the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. Nonetheless, your series of articles on these institutions were classic examples of one-sided, sensationalist journalism.

The King/Drew Medical Center arose from the ashes of the Watts riots in response to the urgent needs of a medically under-served community. In addressing these needs, it has functioned admirably. The medical center’s struggle to gain academic credibility and to consistently offer the highest level of care can be traced to a number of complex socioeconomic and political factors. A more constructive approach to dealing with the problems would have been to examine these complexities with a view toward change. Your denigration of the medical center based on unscientific case reviews and unfair superficial comparisons with other institutions served only to demoralize the staff and to create a greater schism between the medical center and the population it is desperately trying to help.

The mission of the medical center is now clear and it is finding its course. Contrary to your implications, dedicated “top-flight doctors” have chosen to come to the medical center because of a belief in its mission and its goals, and because of a belief in the attainability of these goals. Other “top-flight doctors” from the nation’s premier medical schools, residencies, and fellowships are scheduled to come because of similar beliefs.

The community served by King Hospital deserves high quality medical care; the interns and residents who train in this institution deserve a solid educational experience. The series put the institution back a few giant steps in achieving these goals. Let’s be fair about it and at least present the entire story.

M. ROY WILSON, M.D.

Chief, Division of Ophthalmology

Department of Surgery

PEARL GRIMES, M.D.

Vice Chairperson

Division of Dermatology

Department of Medicine

King/Drew Medical Center