Talk:Duke University Medical Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duke South vs. Duke North[edit]

The other fundamental flaw with this article, considering that it is the only listing for Duke University Hospital, is that Duke South (the old hospital) is no longer an inpatient care facility. That role, along with the emergency and surgical functions were transferred to the current Duke hospital, Duke North, along Erwin Road, in 1980. Duke South is now known as "The Duke Clinics" and is concerned only with outpatient care, mostly in support of Duke North. I'd re-write the article, but frankly, I don't have the time or the information, at the moment.— Mustang_DVS (talk|contribs)

Duke Medicine Entities[edit]

There is a problem with this article in that Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) doesn't refer to anything specific. It is not the current name of Duke University Hospital and Medical School, which is what the article says. Duke University Hospital (DUH) and Duke University School of Medicine both still exist. DUH is owned by Duke University Health System (DUHS), which also owns or operates two community hospitals, some outpatient clinics and other facilities, and a physician group. Duke University has a School of Medicine and a School of Nursing. Recently, these entities have started using the term Duke Medicine to refer to themselves collectively, but I believe that is just a sort of brand name. To the best of my knowledge, which is based on asking people there, DUMC is a mere geographic expression. If you drew a line around DUH, the Schools of Medicine and Nursing, and the related clinics and offices on the Duke campus, that would be DUMC. It would not include the two community hospitals, Durham Regional Hospital and Duke Raleigh Hospital. Those are where the hydraulic fluid incident took place, so that really doesn't belong in an article about DUMC, although it might in an article about either of those hospitals or DUHS. I would like to clarify all this, but it would be a radical enough change that I thought I'd post my intentions first to see if anyone already invested in the article has a good objection. Paul Turner 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]