Friday, August 31, 2007

"Honest Journalism?"

Anonymous said...

Your blog allows people to rail against someone or some entity without a shred of evidence. This Web site is doing a disservice to the very people you claim to be trying to service. While your efforts may be forthright, you are, in most instances, supplying misinformation.

Maybe the rest of the community appreciates the Daily World "Bigfoot was my love slave" type of information, but the rest of us are looking and hoping for people who are willing to put forth honest journalism.

This is a local Blog! It is not the New York Times, CBS Nightly News or even the Delta Democrat Times. I have no control over the "comments" that viewers submit. If I choose to post a writer's view on the "front page" of the Scoop, I rarely edit it unless it is crude, vulgar or threatening.

Every comment on the Leland issue that has been submitted thus far has been "anonymous"... yours included. Whether praising or criticizing Dr. Richards, no one seems to be willing to step up to the plate. Even when writers submit their name with a comment, I generally remove it. I am more interested in what people have to say rather than who said it. That is why most local blogs are anonymous.

As I stated before, the purpose of this blog is to raise the public interest on topics that affect us all in the Delta. Certainly our health care and educational systems fall into this category. If the "issues" brought forth on this blog are true, citizens need to be informed and take action to correct the problems. If the issues are "bogus", they tend to die a natural death because no one responds.

Obviously, this is a somewhat "hot" topic. It has generated more responses than any other topic ever posted on the Scoop. Does that mean any of it is the truth? Absolutely not, but it does mean that many people in the Delta seem to think there may be some validity to the allegations expressed.

Finally, I don't recall a "Bigfoot was my love slave" type of article on the Delta Scoop. I do not consider myself a journalist nor a prophet of the "truth". My advice to those who don't like this blog is simply... don't read it.

My advice to those who enjoy the Scoop, is quit focusing on who said what and concentrate on the issues being discussed. Judge for yourself what is the "truth" and perhaps it will motivate us toward positive change and improvements in the Delta.


Thursday, August 30, 2007

Blog-Master's Note

Well, I asked for comments... and I certainly got them! There are so many comments on the Leland School District topic that I am rendered speechless. Truth or gossip, this issue has aroused some strong emotions from this small community. To read all of the comments, simply click on "Comments" at the end of each submission.

Let me offer a word of reason on this "controversial" issue. The Delta Scoop is a Blog. It allows people to express their ideas, emotions and beliefs in a public forum. Whether it is the "truth" is for you to decide. Its "anonymity" allows those who fear personal retaliation a means to share their views in a "safe harbor".

Personal "gossip" does not interest me; however, issues of public malfeasance and irresponsibility do. If there are problems in our communities that need to be addressed, this is an excellent forum for discovery. What we do about these problems is still our responsibility.

My purpose in hosting this blog is to bring important issues to the the public that would not otherwise be aired in our "public media". Emotions often run strong and that is a good thing! Without passion and knowledge, there can be no change. Democracy starts with the voices of individuals. Change starts with a collective chorus.


Wednesday, August 29, 2007

More on Leland's Woes...

Anonymous said...

This is a terrible problem, not only for the school district but for our children that are in the 1st grade teacher's room that Mr. Richards is having the affair with . He stays in her room all day, not doing his job and is making over $40,000.00.

WAKE UP LELAND SCHOOL BOARD AND LELAND TAXPAYERS....this is OUR money that is funding his "habits"....not only sexual, but also drug and alcohol related habits. He has been arrested in Leland and Greenville, but is still an employee of the LSD. He is a liability to Leland...I'm just glad I'm not a school board member because they will be responsible when something tragic happens because of this thug.....

Let him and his mother and his ex-wife go to the Greenville school district where THEIR tax money will help support his "habits".

Another writer offer this...

I guess the school board in Leland is just going to continue to let Dr. Richards run good teachers off. Not only because of her personality but because of her failure to discipline her son. Who wants to work for someone that shows such favoritism and who is so unfair and unprofessional?

I don't blame Dr. Richards for double dippin' one is stopping her, she gets paid a big salary plus all her other "jobs". Greenville is lucky to have her to pay their city taxes!! Go Leland School Board!!

Wow! A lot of stuff happening in the small town of Leland. I am always amazed that Deltan's believe that they can keep their lives secret while they thrive on every piece of gossip that falls upon their ears.

Drugs, sex and scandal in Leland? And we thought only U.S. Senators could get away with such.


Monday, August 27, 2007

Readin', Ritin' and Rippin' ?

Anonymous writer adds the following...

Playing favorites is only one of Dr. Richard's many character flaws. As a former employee of the Leland School District, I have personally witnessed her complete disregard for the feelings and opinions of others.

After enduring Dr. Richards' reign of terror for four years, I removed myself and my children from Leland Public Schools. Due to her over-inflated ego and complete lack of professionalism, she is quick to verbally assault coworkers and children alike.

With Leland being almost 95% black, this is not a racial issue. Dr. Richards holds the respect of neither the black nor white community. She answers to one person: herself; and has no regard for the welfare of the board, parents or children.

Recently, it was told to me that in addition to being paid as the full time superintendent, Dr. Richards is also being paid as a consultant to other school districts (on LSD's time). Double-dipping?

Dr. Richard's hands are definitely dirty and if the Leland School Board continues to let this ego-maniac rule with unchecked authority, teachers will continue to flee in droves.

Just when you think our health care system is our weakest link, here comes public education to challenge that title. What happened to the "kindly school marm" image of public educators?

I have to wonder how the superintendent described above could have ever been in a classroom, let alone govern a school district. As noted before, my knowledge of school politics is rather limited, so I welcome others to offer their insights on this matter.

The purpose of the "Scoop" is to generate discussion on topics of local concern. Speak up Leland. There are always at least two sides to any controversy.


Friday, August 24, 2007

Nepotism in Leland School District?

Anonymous writer suggests...

This summer, there was apparently a "by invitation only" class offered to a select few students. There were 7 or 8, including Dr. Richards 2 granddaughters, the daughter of the elementary school secretary, who is not a Leland student, the child of a person running for school board, and a few more.

The certified teacher/babysitter for this group was the married, but alleged girlfriend of the superintendent's son. Their inappropriate behavior has been going on for over a year and has been observed by many both on and off campus, and even photographed.

Most recently, the superintendent's son's ex-wife has been rescued from her computer lab and given a "position" with a room and no children. It would be interesting to know if this new job comes with a raise. Of course, this very qualified individual is one of the few teaching assistants who gets to work and get paid in the summer.

It appears that since Dr. Richards would have to pay for all of her son's responsibilities and indiscretions, she just takes care of it all very neatly on the school district bank account.

She gives her ex-daughter in law a job to increase her pay. The grandchildren therefore need a babysitter, so she hires the alleged girlfriend to babysit for them and while she's at it, makes brownie points with a possible future board member by including his child in the group.

This is obviously nepotism. Is it ethical, legal or even something that happens anywhere else where a board of trustees is supposed to approve decisions? Can someone please look into this?


I assume that "Dr. Richards" is the Superintendent of Leland Public Schools. I am certainly no expert on public school politics, but if the author is correct in his/her allegations, this matter certainly warrants closer scrutiny.

In an age when no public servants are held accountable for such "indiscretions", why should we expect our educational leaders to be any different? Nepotism is just the biological version of the "good ole boy" syndrome that rules our local politics.

Oversight by boards of trustees seems ineffective at best. Most members are more than willing to "turn their heads" to such chicanery as long as they get their slice of the public pie.

So, how does this type of blatant abuse of power go unchecked? Simple... you surround yourself with people whose hands are just as dirty as yours, and no one is likely to blow the whistle!


Thursday, August 23, 2007

"Nannyism"... Another View

A third perspective on smoking...

"This is a debate over "Nannyism" rather than smoking in private businesses...yes, private business. Why can't the market set the tone for which establishments are smoker friendly? That means business owners could definitively and forcefully make their establishments "smoke free" -smokers should not be given special rights to smoke. "No Smoking" should mean "No Smoking."

"Businesses should also have the right to allow smoking if the entrepreneur is willing to lose the non-smokers' buying power without non-smokers being able to exert a "we know better than you do" sense of entitlement. Publicly-owned facilities could set smoking policies per the leadership of their elected political bodies. The voters can "fire" these politicians if the smoking issue is such a large issue."

"The issue of smoking rights has nothing to do with smoking. It has everything to do with allowing Nannies to use political weapons to forward their agenda. Strip away the rhetoric, view the political maneuvering, and it's obvious."

"Next, someone will try to ban fried foods (because they know better) or demand that all light bulbs be replaced with compact fluorescents (we know the environment better than you do). See where this heads once you allow the noble attempt at a government enforced smoking ban in places where natural market forces suggest that allowing smoking, or partial smoking, is profitable and desirable to a certain base of customers?"

"Personally, I don't smoke and won't spend money if I'm not feeling comfortable due to smoke levels. That's the market in action. If you want to do something legitimate, quit calling on politicians and organize boycotts. If you can't get "THAT MUCH" support to restrict smoking, then pulling political strings is an end-around method of subverting majority opinion."

That makes you "Holier-than-thou."


I will agree that calling local politicians is a waste of time, particularly since the recent election reinstated the "old guard" for yet another term.

As for boycotts, they are essentially in place now. Most non-smokers who are serious about avoiding the lethal fumes of tobacco have long since abandoned the "entertainment district".

I tend to agree with the previous writer who claimed that 80% of the "night-life people" smoke. They smoke in these establishments because it is allowed... and where it is not allowed, this same 80% abstain. (It is possible to drink, gamble and be social without smoking).

As I stated before, this is a war in which everyone loses! Until Greenville's population swells to 500,000 with enough restaurants and clubs to fit everyone's lifestyle and preferences, the smokers shall continue to inhabit the "social scene" of Greenville.

As for the 20% of "non-smoking night-life people", they will simply have to "suck it up" or shut up!


Tuesday, August 21, 2007

"Butts Out Night?"

This from an angry smoker...

"I think the Non Smokers should Jump off thier soapbox. A private business should have the right to set thier own policy with regard to a legal activity. Mississippi is leading the nation in obesity and costing tax payers billions in health care.

Should these fat folks be denied service at Popeyes or McDonalds. I say hell yes. People should make thier own choice on where to eat or where to party. Over 80% of the night life people smoke. One Restaurant in Ridgeland is losing $1500.00 a day sense the smoking ban was approved. Greenville can not afford to loose any more businesses for any reason. Deny our Mayor fast food NOW. "

And this from an equally angry non-smoker...

Smokers just don't get it! Smoking is not a God given right, but breathing is! Sure, smoking is legal drug use and if you choose to kill yourself by using tobacco, you certainly have that right! However, you don't have the right to kill me with your drug.

Hey guys....It's not about YOUR rights, it is about MINE!

Smoking has been proven to cause millions of deaths each year. To my knowledge, abstaining from smoking for 2 to 4 hours has yet to claim a single victim. No one denies smokers the right to kill themselves. Just don't take me out with you.

Smoking bans are about protecting peoples health, not drug users perceived "rights". It is so easy for smokers to say, if you don't like smoke, stay away from the places that allow it. So, what if I don't choose to breathe smoke, but I would like to go to a bar or casino in Greenville? S**t outta luck!

Where are the non-smoking bars and casinos??? So where are MY rights if I choose to gamble my money but not my life?

Most of the smokers I know are major hypocrites. They don't smoke in their offices, homes, around their children or even in their cars because they know it is a nasty, foul habit that is dangerous to others.
But let them get out into "recreational" airspace, and suddenly everyone should have to just deal with their nasty smoke!

The day they legalize homicide is the day you can justify smoking in public places!

Well, it seems that we have hit upon a subject on which we are quite outspoken! Here are two very different (and unusual) views on the topic of "civil rights".

The first writer seems to suggest that because 80% of "night life people" smoke, the majority should rule by virtue of free choice. However, in the next sentence, he believes that "fat folks" should be denied fast food because they are a burden to our health care system.

He/she goes on to state that "Mississippi is leading the nation in obesity"... (Here is where the author's logic loses me and I would have to ask:
  1. Is it less costly to kill yourself with tar and nicotine than fried chicken?
  2. Should we prohibit the sale of cigarettes to obese people, since they already have one major health risk?
  3. If "smokers" and "fat folks" are both majorities in our city, what is the difference in these group's rights?

Okay, on to the second author. He/she seems to clearly illustrate that there are basically two very differing views of this one issue:

  1. If you smoke, it is a political issue about personal freedoms, choices and rights.
  2. If you don't smoke, it is health care issue about infringement of personal freedoms, choices and rights.

At the end of the day, I doubt that either camp will ever understand the other's views. Wars have been fought over less turbulent issues than this and I see no simple solution in sight.

Perhaps a compromise... restaurants and bars could advertise smoking and non-smoking nights. Instead of "Girl's Night Out", how about "Butts Out Night"? Who knows? They might see an entirely different clientele whose money is just as green!


Sunday, August 19, 2007

Coffers Over Coffins

Anonymous said...

And.....reading this morning's DDT, I see that the restaurants are harping about the proposed smoking ban. I'd really like to tell Mr. Warren at Gus' Restaurant that I'd actually come back to his restaurant if he could get the smokers out of there. His waitresses are the worst offenders! My family enjoyed eating there after church years ago, but the smoke was so offensive, that we stopped going.

There is a non-smoking section in the back of the restaurant, but the non-smokers had to walk through the entire length of the smoking portion to reach it. And the waitresses positioned themselves at a table just outside the entrance to the non-smoking section and enjoyed the longest, foulest cigarette breaks imaginable.

A person can't even TASTE the food once the air has been fouled with all of that smoke. Lose the smoke, and I'll come back!

Unlike Greenwood, which banned smoking in ALL public establishments, Greenville has chosen to "selectively" ban smoking which has consequently made everyone mad. The non-smokers are mad because they still can not go to a downtown bar, restaurant or casino without being poisoned by second-hand smoke.

The owners of the more "family-oriented" restaurants are outraged that the government can dictate how they operate their business, while carving out "exceptions" for a privileged few.

So, who actually wins in this arbitrary smoking ban? Non-smokers? No, they are still restricted in where they can go for food and entertainment. Smokers? No, there will still be fewer places for them to pollute. Business owners? No, unless you are among the select few chosen to be exempt of the city's ban.

Is Greenville's smoking ban about protecting our citizen's health, reducing the number of tobacco-related deaths each year, or decreasing the spiraling cost of health care? Absolutely NOT!

It is about a spineless group of self-serving politicians who are too greedy to do the right thing. It is about keeping the "tax dollars" in the city coffers for pet projects. It is about MONEY!

Let's be realistic. Greenville casinos don't generate any tourism revenue for the city. They simply serve as convenient "clubhouses" for our poorest citizens to partake of their multiple addictions... tobacco, alcohol and gambling. Sure, if you banned smoking and "free" drinking in our casinos, they would probably disappear in six weeks. That alone should tell you why Greenville is giving them a "pass".

In the 15+ years that Casinos have plagued Greenville, what improvements have we seen as a result? Do they offer quality restaurants, shops, or other non-gambling attractions? Have they significantly developed the downtown infrastructure with streets and buildings? Do they offer shows and feature known entertainers that might attract some limited tourism? The answer to all of these questions is "No"... and yet the casinos' ability to sustain a profit seems to be paramount over our city's concern for the health of our citizens.

Greenwood took the high road, choosing to ban smoking across the board in an attempt to improve citizen's quality and quantity of life. Sure, some did not approve of the decision, but at least the decision was fair and equitable to all business owners alike.

Greenville chose the path of politics as usual, doling out pardons to those who contribute significantly to their personal and political gain. To paraphrase JFK...

"Ask not, what your local politicians can do for you; ask rather, what you can do for your local politicians."


Tuesday, August 14, 2007

A Campaign Worth Winning!

Several anonymous writers have offered this as a local campaign slogan:

"When Hubert Humphrey was running for President in the late 60's, a slogan was coined that should be our slogan for the mess at DRMC. If you don't remember it, here it is... "

Perhaps we can get Hugh McCormick to sell these next to the vials of Greenville's brown water... both are a disgrace.


Sunday, August 12, 2007

Facts About the "Heart Center"

Here are a few "facts" from the most recent JCAHO survey of DRMC...

Thursday, August 09, 2007

"LR" Focuses on the Facts

"Local Reflector" finds the following:

I found a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Inspector General Report called "The External Review of Hospital Quality: A Call for Greater Accountability." You'll find a summary conclusion on page 4 of the 96-page long report. It was released in 1997 so it may contain some relevancy problems. I don't know as I'm not a healthcare worker (never have been), but gov't. programs rarely undergo fundamental reform.

The Report says about the Joint Commission:

"Joint Commission surveys provide an important vehicle for reducing risk and fostering improvement. Hospital leadership takes these accreditation surveys seriously. Hospitals spend months preparing for them, seeking to ensure that their hospitals meet and, where possible, exceed the Joint Commission’s standards."

However, the report lists this as a major deficiency:

"Joint Commission surveys are unlikely to detect substandard patterns of care or individual practitioners with questionable skills. Quick-paced, tightly structured, educationally oriented surveys afford little opportunity for in-depth probing of hospital conditions or practices. Rather than selecting a random sample, the surveyors tend to rely on hospital staff to choose the medical records for review. Further, the surveyors typically begin the process with little background information on any special problems or challenges facing a hospital. "

The report also says on page 11 - for us lay people - that Joint Commission accreditation means, by federal statute, that a hospital simply meets Medicare's standards to participate in the program and it's a form of self-regulation under which hospitals pay a fee.

I also found this on page 17 of this same Accountability Report as printed:

"Joint Commission surveys are unlikely to detect substandard patterns of care or individual practitioners with questionable skills. Joint Commission surveyors get a broad rather than in-depth view of hospitals they survey. The surveys generally last just a few days. The survey agendas are packed with back-to-back sessions that allow 45 minutes to an hour for most areas of the hospital. Furthermore, the surveyors lack much background information on the hospital that could help them hone their surveys.

The surveyors’ broad view of the hospitals, coupled with the Joint Commission’s approaches to medical record and credentials reviews, make such surveys unlikely to uncover patterns or individuals responsible for poor care. First of all, surveyors do not select the records for review based on indications of poor quality. Indeed, the hospitals themselves often choose the records for review. In reviewing medical records, surveyors focus more on processes than appropriateness of care: surveyors "do not judge directly whether the care given is good or bad, right or wrong."

Likewise, the review of physician credentials and privileges falls short of identifying individuals whose skills may be questionable: the sessions are too short for an in-depth review, hospitals often choose the records themselves, and the questioning rarely uncovers marginal practitioners. The Joint Commission’s own publications note that the process "does not evaluate the quality of care provided by individual medical staff members."

Maybe I've found "ancient" data. Maybe not. But it has turned up concerning the Joint Commission. I have no dog in the fight other than an interest in the Joint Commission's methods of accreditation. Forthright's reply sent me researching to enlighten myself and maybe a few others.

I'm still not 100% sure, but it appears - if this report is even partially relevant - questions or cynicism can be raised about JCAHO accreditation, especially if the accreditation process simply is a self-regulatory measure to ensure a hospital meets Medicare's standards. I don't see how ANY Delta hospital, DRMC included, couldn't be accredited given government subsidies through federal entitlements are such life-blood.

Yeah, it's an award - but how should ordinary people (customers) treat it when deciding the quality of a hospital. This report suggests the Joint Commission accreditation is only good for the days when auditors are ACTUALLY and PHYSICALLY on a hospital's premises and offers no insight on the quality of care and the skill of the physician.

Darn it.....I've cracked the rose colored glasses I packed away, but had retrieved to enter this discussion. By the way, follow the link or Google the report title and it pops up easily. Here's the link:

Make your own decision. Think. Discuss the facts - as much as facts can be gathered. Forthright, the discussion is educational when you get right down to it. Are my conclusions appropriate, whether or not people agree with them?

Local Reflector.

Thanks for your research LR. Admittedly, the report is a bit dated, but as you noted, while processes may be revised in governmental regulatory agencies, their objectives rarely change. Such is the case with JCAHO's accreditation.

In the past 5 years, JCAHO's approach to surveys has changed a bit. As described above, the old survey process was like preparing for a three act play. The dates of the play were well known in advance. Everyone had rehearsed their "lines", the hospital decorated the "set" with a new coat of paint (make-up) and the "staging" was totally directed by hospital administration.

The surveyors (audience) were paraded around the campus on a strategically preplanned tour, pointing out recent improvements, while avoiding numerous "locked doors" concealing countless "peccadilloes". During the final act, the "score" was revealed to the hospital administration.

If the score was low, the hospital was given 6-8 weeks to correct the "specific" problems. If adequate documentation (re-writing of script) was subsequently presented to JCAHO, you were ceremoniously awarded the "Medicare Medal of Honor", good for another 3 years.

As soon as the surveyors left the campus, the set was struck, the players returned to "reality" and the JCAHO decals (Oscars) were proudly displayed throughout the facility. Everyone congratulated each other on their score (the reviews).

The good news is that the survey process has significantly changed in recent years. It is now a tracer methodology in which the surveyors randomly select medical records and literally trace them backwards, from discharge to admission. Everyone who deals with the patients is subject to scrutiny, which makes both hospitals and employees more accountable for ongoing compliance as opposed to the former series of "Great Performances".

Now, does this change the previous findings that JCAHO accreditation is not intended to suggest quality? No, it is simply means that hospitals are now held to a bit higher standard in being approved for Medicare funding... the lifeblood of rural hospitals.

Although vastly improved in the past few years, I still liken the process of JCAHO hospital accreditation to our Mississippi Vehicle Inspection System...

Scenario: You are stopped by a highway patrol officer for violations including: no muffler, improper emissions, broken windshield, no tail-lights or rear-view mirror and illegally tinted windows. The officer glances down at your "cracked and illegally tinted" windshield and sees a valid inspection sticker dated only two weeks earlier. The officer questions the driver, "How did you ever get that inspection sticker?"

The driver responds, "Man, wasn't nothing wrong with this car two weeks ago."

I urge all readers to become more informed, like LR. The Internet has a wealth of information for those who seek it. Log on to the above website to learn more about JCAHO. (Warning: It is rather dry.) Keep informed, keep caring and keep writing...


Wednesday, August 08, 2007

"Economic Engine" Needs a New Engineer!

Anonymous said...

Don't be naive and think that a change in the supervisors will cause any change at DRMC. The supervisors appoint the DRMC board; but, it is an independent board that functions entirely without political interference from the supervisors. The "old guard" knows that if they control the administrator, they control the board and the hospital. So - the status quo will go on whether there is a change in the supervisors or not. The sad problems is that the supervisors and the citizens of the county may get stuck with quite a bill if there is any default by the hospital on its ever increasing debt load. What should be a tremendous asset to the county and its citizens, may turn out to be worthless.

Anonymous said...

It is amusing to read so many negative comments about the care at DRMC, yet nobody have any data to back it up. As far as I understand, DRMC was re-accredited this year by the Joint Commission which awards a health care organization that is in compliance with all standards at the time of the on-site survey or has successfully addressed requirements for improvement within 90 days following the survey.

Also, based on National Patient Safety Goals and National Quality Improvement Goals, DRMC performed at the same level that most accredited institutions in this country. I am by no means saying that DRMC is perfect, in fact, there is a lot of room for improvement.

However, bad experiences are not the rule among surveyed patients and bad outcomes happen everywhere. For example, the Lewis Blackman Hospital Patient Safety Act, which requires all physicians in South Carolina to wear identification describing their rank, was introduced when a group of residents in a major university hospital in Charleston screwed up big time.

For those people that sneeze once and fly somewhere else for medical care, I encourage you to review the list of Best Hospitals in America (US News and World Report). Not a single hospital in the State of Mississippi, in any single specialty, has ever made the cut. In fact, the University of Mississippi Medical Center does not even have basic services all the time (Dermatology for example). By the way, some of the doctors in this town have formal training in hospitals that have made that list. With this negative attitude towards your hospital ("the economic engine of this county"), you are hurting yourself and your loved ones. Be an ambassador for your town, bring up the best qualities and please, chose another topic!!!

As a health care professional, I can speak to the efficacy of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO). This is a national accreditation that is purchased by a hospital. It costs the hospital between $30 to $60K for them to say that you meet their standards. Although recently revised, it is still largely a paper survey in which you are privy to the "right" answers at the time of purchase. It would be ludicrous to fail and certainly in neither party's interest.

Every hospital wants this accreditation for reimbursement reasons and 96% of all hospitals achieve it. Do they monitor the daily activities of hospitals? No. Does this accreditation mean that the hospital is safe? No. It merely means that the hospital has learned to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops in order to hang a plaque in the lobby... bought and paid for.

As for proof of the allegations against DRMC, it is out there, but here's where Ray's true talents come to play. Ray is the master of "truth-slaying". He buys the silence of those who dare to expose the truth and in doing so, continues his autocratic reign. He surrounds himself with fools and stooges who share the financial bounty of his human plunder.

As for the "public image" of DRMC, the hospital spends over $2 million a year in marketing.... Remember, "Better Together"? Ask an ex-KD employee how much "better" it is today. Ask a recent patient about their experience at DRMC. If you are naive enough to believe the statistical rhetoric spewed forth in defence of this failing medical center, you probably voted today for all of the incumbent county supervisors.

The one thing of which I am certain is that DRMC will one day regain its recognition as a quality medical center. How long it will take for Greenville and Washington County to acknowledge and resolve the true issues at hand, is my most grave concern.


Sunday, August 05, 2007

More Views on DRMC

Anonymous said...

You know you are right. The work I did at DRMC was the hardest nursing work I ever did. I have worked in different states and in different units and different cities. But, although I really enjoyed the Physicians the work was very demanding. If I had to stay and work there for the remainder of my career I would never last as an RN.

As far as administration goes, again as I said before; it's as much about what you know about who you know- agree-agree- agree!!!!!!!! You need the right last name or be a part of the Ole Miss clique!!! Check and see who's related to who when it comes to upper management- and the flavor as well!

I love this blog- it is being read all around the world you know!!!! Keep up the honesty- it will prevail!!! God will watch over you .

Anonymous said...

Many former employees from this hospital feel validated when reading the comments on this website. I feel so badly for those that have to work there because of personal circumstances. it's really sad. It really is. It is not like this elsewhere, there are much better working conditions where it is not run by nepotism.

These employees- a lot of them are fearful to keep there job. Afraid to say anything or speak out against the current administration- if you do- that's it within a short time you are gone, or forced out of a job. That's why current employees are afraid to say too much. Especially middle management. It is not a good work environment.

They have seen it done- especially when KDH was bought- oh my-people were really afraid. But only by speaking out will things change for those still there. It is sad. Also- if anything is said- and anyone who talks about anything- it somehow works it's way back to administration- look out- they are watching everyone- either you are on the band wagon or look out-there is no protection either.

A nurse is a little more protected because of the dire shortage- but others are not and it's not fair- it is 2007- how is this allowed to happen?

How indeed? The consensus of opinion seems to be that DRMC needs a major overhaul. I only hope that Greenville voters remember that several of Ray Humphreys' "bosses" are running for re-election on Tuesday. If they can not see the problems at DRMC, perhaps we should enlighten them.

The conditions at DRMC will never changes as long as the "old guard" is in power. "A new broom sweeps clean".


Saturday, August 04, 2007

Everybody is Traveling!

Anonymous writer is leery of ER...

As far as the ER physician's being board certified in Emergency Medicine, this should have been addressed some several years ago. Little did the public know that there has not been an ER physician at DRMC that holds a board certification in Emergency Medicine since 2002.

In May there were quite a few graduates from area nursing schools that have been hired at DRMC. This is the only way that the hospital can function without the travel nurses. Give these new nurses a chance, everyone has to start somewhere and they are being supervised by the very few seasoned nurses left. DRMC needs nurses from this area who care about the community and not the paycheck.

Where else would DRMC get them if it weren't for new grads? Last I checked there wasn't a "nurse store" even close to Greenville. Those guys "nurses" have got to have some help, they are being loyal to the people of this community by sacrificing there time with family and friends to work long hours where the hospital is not solely staffed with travel nurses.

Just think, that could be your family member who just may not have time to drive somewhere else for healthcare. You will be at the seasoned nurses mercy and hope that one of them has been gracious enough to sign up for that extra shift until these new grads are appropriately trained.

Yes, there are some frustrating issues going on at the present time involving healthcare in Greenville, but as said above there are some good hardworking people still left at DRMC!!

I think everyone agrees that there are some excellent nurses left at DRMC. The problem is that, were it not for the deplorable working conditions and incompetent administration, there would be a lot more local nurses there today instead of a constant stream of "travelers".

As previously noted on the "Scoop", most of the KD nurses as well as many DRMC veterans, are now driving to Cleveland, Greenwood or Indianola just to work in a health care setting which doesn't jeopardize their license on a daily basis. So, it seems that all nurses are "traveling", in a sense, just for different reasons.

Obviously, there are some severe problems at a hospital when local nurses would rather drive 80 to 100 miles a day, rather than work in their own community. It simply doesn't make sense!

I commend the graduate nurses for working in Greenville and we should support them with every opportunity to develop their careers. My fear is that they too, will seek "greener pastures" as soon as they realize that being a nurse does not mean that you have to work in a hostile, unsafe environment.

Leadership starts at the top and that's exactly where it is lacking at DRMC. Anyone who has worked there will tell you that management is more about "cliques" and "clubs" than qualifications. Sure working in health care is stressful, but no one is going to stay in a job where employees are not treated fairly and equally.

Health care studies indicate that employees are willing to take less money to have a job that offers them personal recognition, security and a sense of self-worth. They are also willing to drive out of Greenville to seek these things... and with $3.00 gas just around the corner, that should speak volumes about the problems at DRMC.


Thursday, August 02, 2007

More "Shock and Awe"

Another dissatisfied customer writes:

You maybe "stunned" but I am actually scared and shocked. If the issues you brought forward do not convince the community of Greenville to take their healthcare elsewhere, maybe this information will.

It was brought to the attention of the ER "administration" that there is an employee working as a registered nurse without a valid RN MS license. This is a total disregard to the professional standards set forth by the state for patient safety. The potential risks involved in this sort of behavior is inconceivable.

So who is actually to blame for placing patients in harm's way; the person in charge of hiring or the "nurse"? My belief is that fault lies equally between them. If you think about it, anyone can say they are licensed to perform a job, but it is the responsibility of their employer to be diligent in confirming this information.
DRMC has demonstrated a lackadaisical attitude towards patient care and safety.

First with the ER physicians leaving and now with the impersonating of RNs, when will the madness stop? I too will be travelling farther distances for healthcare, especially next month when the only physicians left in the ER are not certified for the emergency department.

Shocked and scared

"Lackadaisical" is somewhat mild in describing DRMC's attitude toward patient care and safety. Now that they are the only show in town, why should they care about quality. Ninety percent of the nursing staff is comprised of "travel nurses" who are only there for the big paychecks they command. Few have any concern about patient care or quality. In 8-12 weeks, they will move on to the next travel assignment and DRMC's revolving door will keep on spinning!

If there are unlicensed nurses working at DRMC, that is indeed a serious offense. Yes, it is the employer's obligation to verify all licenses prior to employment. It is also their job to ensure the competence of both nurses and physicians who work there, whether as employees or contract labor.

With the employee turnover rate at an all time high, and the continuing use of travel nurses, the normal dangers associated with any hospital stay are quadrupled at DRMC. Should we be scared? Yes, we should be very scared!