It would be a good idea to have a Medical Director, and I believe most hospital would require it. First of all, it would give the physicians that you enroll in your program a physician champion who will be there for them should a crisis arise and they need support. A bloodless program would also need guidance from physicians regarding protocols and procedures, and usually there is a steering committee that the Medical Director would chair. Having someone knowledgeable and current in non-blood medical management is important to both administration and the hospital, and both would naturally look to a physician for direction. Quality of care is also an issue, and a Medical Director could resolve any physician conflict that may arise during patient care. A programs manager or coordinator can do alot, but without physician support and a physician leader to take the lead, the program would not have the teeth it needs to survive.

Are the Medical Directors for Bloodless Medicine compensated?

Medical Directors would prefer to be paid for their work, but there are requirements and red tape that go along with the pay, so some choose to accept the responsibility without pay. I'm not sure what the percentages would be of paid vs. unpaid, but the main thing is that there is a physician willing to be in charge of a hospital program and take responsibility to oversee policy, procedure, and patient care. For most programs, once the program is up and running, the Medical Director's oversight is not very time consuming and he/she can focus on their primary practice and still be available to answer questions or problem solve as needed for the bloodless program.