Hospital design article leaves one nurse curious

Dear editor,

I just read Scott Stanfield’s article on the Hospital design issues still to be addressed in the Aug. 26 edition of the Record (Hospital design issues still to be addressed).

I am shocked to read that they have only put shovels in the ground, still have “plenty of wrinkles and issues” to be addressed, and yet the Treasury Board is “very firm” about there being no wiggle room for “additional scope to the project”.

Isn’t it standard for any project (especially one of this size and importance) to have some kind of financial planning for those unknowns that are bound to pop up? What happens if a new technology is introduced to some aspect of health care delivery in the next year or so and it requires a change to the plans so that patients will in fact be getting a “state of the art” facility?

Chief project officer, Mr. Sparrow, also reports that hospitals have “reduced or in some cases combined the number of public and staff bathrooms”. What does that mean exactly? Is this the kind of baffle-speak that is part of the “open, transparent process that will facilitate the excellent rapport back and forth”?  If so, I am a little concerned.

If indeed these comments are accurate I am curious to know why there is even any need for public input? And if I do attend one of those information sharing sessions, should I bring my own translator? Sincerely curious,

Barbara Mellin, RN



Comox Valley Record