Treatments could add symptoms/side effects/additional costs

I love the detail level of the treatments and symptoms, but there doesn't seem to be any downside to throwing treatments at patients, other than the time it takes the staff to administer.

In reality, an analgesic might increase bleeding, or an anti-inflammatory effect. it would add some meaningful challenge to the diagnosis/treatment cycle if it wasn't always clear when a symptom was a result of the illness or of an administered treatment. It would also add a play off between managing patient comfort, and making a clear diagnosis.

Certain treatments (drugs, etc) could add an additional expense (I couldn't find any evidence that this is happening already).

I agree, some treatments wouldn't go well together and can cause problem for treatment for the main cause.

Is there any upside to giving extra treatments for outpatients?

I didn't see any incentive, as it just wastes time and I didn't see an uptick in satisfaction.

I imagine sending a patient out to the road with a prescription for "Rest" with an exposed open wound would have a greater impact than not having enough posters in the corridors.

Don't some symptoms result in other effects? You don't get hypovolemia if you've treated all bleeding symptoms, as far as I can tell - not thoroughly tested.

Does depression result in lower patient mood? That kind of thing would be interesting to explore.