BrettB
Active Member
True, though if the hospital foundation does manage to raise its $1 billion goal, that'll make it a lot harder for the province to turn away
|
|
|
- Thread starter northlands
- Start date
fromyeg
Active Member
Speaking as someone who works at the U of A Hospital and who spent many years at the U of A.
It is disappointing that the decision was made to locate the standalone Stollery where it is now proposed.
As mentioned, there are major advantages to having it closely located to the university so that medical, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, medical lab sciences, etc, etc students have easy access to the hospital.
As also mentioned, LRT access is very important for staff and students working at the hospital in addition to patients and families. A bus is not close to the same as an LRT stop on two growing lines.
What has not been mentioned as much is the benefit of having medical services closely located. Proximity to the Kaye Clinic was mentioned, but consider as well that children are treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery, that occurs at the U of A. They are treated with radiation at the Cross Cancer Institute. These are only a couple examples. Trips for these treatments will be much harder for patients and families than if the Stollery was located at the CBS site. We’re talking multiple longer ambulance rides to get treatment done.
As well, in person collaboration, cooperation, discussion among healthcare professionals is important and obviously much more easily done when services are located close together.
In terms of the reasons for the currently selected site, I understand that it is a greenfield site. But at this time we don’t have funding for a hospital, yet alone plans for one. It’s not like we are going to have shovels in the ground anytime soon. Surely demolition could have started as planning work was underway. I do not see major time savings just because this is a greenfield site.
If this hospital get built, it will be operation for decades and likely outlive all of us.
The people and patients and families who work at and receive treatment at this hospital will be living with the decision of where it is located for a long time to come. We should make the decision that most benefits those who work at and receive treatment there, not the one that is easiest because it saves us the trouble of demolition.
If there are strong reasons why this is the best site I have not heard them.
And no, I do not have faith in this government in almost any way.
The options are not this or no hospital, an option does exist for a more optimally located hospital that would much better serve staff, patients and families.
Just my thoughts.
It is disappointing that the decision was made to locate the standalone Stollery where it is now proposed.
As mentioned, there are major advantages to having it closely located to the university so that medical, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, medical lab sciences, etc, etc students have easy access to the hospital.
As also mentioned, LRT access is very important for staff and students working at the hospital in addition to patients and families. A bus is not close to the same as an LRT stop on two growing lines.
What has not been mentioned as much is the benefit of having medical services closely located. Proximity to the Kaye Clinic was mentioned, but consider as well that children are treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery, that occurs at the U of A. They are treated with radiation at the Cross Cancer Institute. These are only a couple examples. Trips for these treatments will be much harder for patients and families than if the Stollery was located at the CBS site. We’re talking multiple longer ambulance rides to get treatment done.
As well, in person collaboration, cooperation, discussion among healthcare professionals is important and obviously much more easily done when services are located close together.
In terms of the reasons for the currently selected site, I understand that it is a greenfield site. But at this time we don’t have funding for a hospital, yet alone plans for one. It’s not like we are going to have shovels in the ground anytime soon. Surely demolition could have started as planning work was underway. I do not see major time savings just because this is a greenfield site.
If this hospital get built, it will be operation for decades and likely outlive all of us.
The people and patients and families who work at and receive treatment at this hospital will be living with the decision of where it is located for a long time to come. We should make the decision that most benefits those who work at and receive treatment there, not the one that is easiest because it saves us the trouble of demolition.
If there are strong reasons why this is the best site I have not heard them.
And no, I do not have faith in this government in almost any way.
The options are not this or no hospital, an option does exist for a more optimally located hospital that would much better serve staff, patients and families.
Just my thoughts.
Glenco
Senior Member
The fact that the foundation is expected to raise $1,000,000,000 is mind boggling to me. How many years is it going to take?
MacLac
Senior Member
Good point, granted the Stollery foundation raises a shit ton of money! How much you ask? A Royal shit ton! But why are they planning on raising what? 1/3rd of the building price tag? Is this another caveat our POS Madame Premiere has hidden in the bone she threw at us scumbag YEG'ers yesterday?
Airboy
Senior Member
another short site is the lack of Places for out of town families to stay near by. The U of A does have a few places. Plus the LRT gives a few more. But the amount of money and time wasted on this we could have had a new facility designed and built already. which would have allowed Mackenzie HC to renovate and expand services. Hell even the ER could have moved into the Stollery Er.
But having recently experienced the Sask system they are just as bad as us.
But having recently experienced the Sask system they are just as bad as us.
Garceyues
Active Member
As someone who works in healthcare I couldn't have said it better myself. Efficient, comprehensive, and collaborative care necessitates having access to the full array of hospital services/specialist teams and health infrastructure within a given location. This expansion site almost certainly will not offer every single subspecialist service that the existing Stollery does. This will lead invariably lead inefficiencies and suboptimal care in multiple capacities, and will ultimately drive up costs in the long run.
I don't want to be too pessimistic about additional hospital capacity being built, which in itself is a good thing. However, anyone who thinks that this provincial government has supported our healthcare system and workers in an evidence-based and non-politically motivated capacity is kidding themselves or just hasn't been paying attention. The government being a poor steward of our healthcare system and social services is an understatement, yet they are simultaneously fiscally irresponsible. The auditor general's recent report on the $100m lost on the super lab and Athana Mentzelopoulos being fired only scratch the surface of how incompetent and corrupt this government is.
degrandprix
Active Member
Crazy that this isn't going on the superlab site, giant empty field directly connected to UofA by LRT.
Though I don't understand how the old blood services site was even being considered if they settled on a site that is 30 acres?
Though I don't understand how the old blood services site was even being considered if they settled on a site that is 30 acres?
thommyjo
Senior Member
I’d imagine west 240, Michener park, and the surrounding development will solve that in the 10-15 years ahead.
archited
Senior Member
Vertical vs horizontal
CplKlinger
Senior Member
With the potential of continuing to share some services with the UofA hospital.
trevorhayden
Active Member
The UCP was actually asked why they chose such a remote location. They said that 40% of patients are from outside Edmonton. So it needed to be accessible from a highway.
What about the other 60%?
Totally carbrained.
What about the other 60%?
Totally carbrained.
degrandprix
Active Member
The 2 sites are vastly different though, 4,300 m2 vs 122,000 m2 going off Google maps measurements. Yes it would share services with the UofA but those numbers make it seem like the blood services site was never a real option.
IanO
Superstar
My understanding was that something like this site was being considered = 250,000 sqft for easy math.
Assuming they want something similar or slightly larger than Calgary's (750k), it would be 4-5 floors to make it work.
You've got parkades there, LRT, major bus routes x many, efficiencies with the other major buildings/centres right there, STARS and next to hotels and other housing options, as well as food and other services.
Airboy
Senior Member
Ian that was the location I was told as well. In fact a friend at The Blood Service was told they were vacating to be replaced by the Stollery.
I know Dialog was involved a long time ago but do we know if anyone is involved yet in SD or DD.
I know Dialog was involved a long time ago but do we know if anyone is involved yet in SD or DD.
Oilers99
Active Member
There is additional servicing capacity along 122 street as well.