Anonymous addresses the letter...
I am having a hard time with the issue of the mayor putting her "letter" on Greenville letterhead. I believe by doing that she is saying that the "CITY" is behind her in what she is writing. I don't think she should be able to do that. Who is this "person" that she is 'glamorizing"? Have you read about the murder in the paper?? HORRIFIC! If my best friend did something like that I would not write a recommendation for her/him...does anyone else have a problem with this??
In addition, I have a problem with the woman being pissed about not being able to play in the men's tournament at the country club. Someone told me it was the topic of conversation on super-talk MS yesterday....that they were somewhat bashing GGCC for not letting her play. That is what I heard....however, I did not hear the program.
That woman should get over it....just understand that is it a MEN'S tournament...if someone wants to call it discrimination...so be it...would she sign up to play in a children's tournament??? Would that not be considered discrimination??? Get real...get over it. I do not think she should be allowed to play. I was really pissed that people are mad that the "woman" could not play. Hell, if that is the case, then don't have tournaments and there will not exist this type of thing. It seems no matter what the case is, there is ALWAYS someone wanting to make a GRAND ordeal out of something so stupid.
Okay, we have all had time to digest the letter that Mayor Hudson wrote on behalf of her family friend. Many such letters are written every day on behalf of both the innocent and the guilty. Do they sway the opinions of our courts in the dispensation of justice? I rather doubt it.
So, why the uproar? Because Mayor Hudson chose to write the letter on official city government stationery. Illegal? No, just a very poor decision. The mayor is an intelligent woman, as well as an attorney, who should have clearly foreseen the negative ramifications of this "innocent" act.
If she had not intended her position as mayor to be in some way influential in this case, she would have simply used personal stationery or plain paper. I find it hard to believe that our mayor is so naive as to not understand the inherent "conflicts of interest" that this letter represents.
Impeach Hudson? No, but at the end of the day, this act simply adds to her list of incredibly bad judgement calls and arrogant posturing. I guess we will see how it plays at the polls on Monday.
Now, as to the men's golf tournament at GGCC. This is just further evidence that our Mayor is nobody's fool. Do we really believe that Mayor Hudson truly wants to play in this tournament? Is it a valid gender bias issue or simply a ploy to keep her name in the headlines as an election approaches? My money is on the latter.
We have to remember that most Americans don't vote for the most "qualified" candidate... they vote for the one who most closely matches their socio-economic and demographic profile. That is not to say that I believe that the election will be determined by black, female golfers. None-the-less, whenever issues of race or gender become controversial in the press, there are those who would go to the polls for the first time in their life just to "even the score".
As a once famous actress noted, "There is no such thing as bad press; it is when they stop talking about you that you are dead".
Forthright
Friday, September 28, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
"Trench" Warfare
"Amazed" adds the following:
I love the banter surrounding this blog. It promotes thought and entertainment. I think it also promotes a healthy dose of truth....
I do not totally disagree with the "semi regular reader"...
I think that you should look in the mirror everyday. You should reflect on the prior day. You should commit to doing your best the current day. You should want to play nice with your co-workers. You should want your patients to fair well. You should want to do the job you chose. It's true that mental misery serves no positive purpose. I think the patients would definitely agree. The problem is that should everyone in the "trench" that think things are going from bad to worse and have experienced a decline in their job satisfaction were to bail... there would be a lot of echoing in the halls sure to be left empty. If this advise is supported by administration and management, y'all better find some scrubs and kiss your 8-5 jobs goodbye. For that matter, I do not think that this reflection should only be advise for those in the "trench." I think that those in administration and management should partake in this daily recommend allowance of reflection, as well. Assuming, of course, their preoccupation with self promotion will permit time to do so.
I think doctors and nurses are interested in promoting positive patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. I think they would love to sit around and talk with the patients about their visit satisfaction. The problem is that they do not have the time. That is about to get a lot worse. The ER staff is being slashed. The tech positions are now cut in half. The people the nurses relied so heavily on to run patients around to xray, to take specimens to the lab, to enter orders into the computer, to file charts, answer the phones, give those ever important pillows to the patients will be gone. This role will now also be the job of nursing. Nurses didn't already have enough to do. So "semi regular" If you have any ideas how to accomplish all of this and promote positive patient experiences, I'm sure the staff in the ER would love to hear it. You don't have to shout it, either. Despite what you seem to think. There are no "high horses" to be seen. I agree that those in the "trench" lend to the patient's perception of their care. Absolutely, positively. Should it not be obvious, then to those in administration and management that patient satisfaction may benefit from a positive work environment???? HMMMMM....
No. Instead, add it the role of the nurse... They apparently do it not have anything to do... Hardly. Milling about is not a privilege of those in the "trench." It is absolutely only for management and administration. In those roles, most spend the entire day rushing from one "important" meeting to the other, looking exhausted as they wander from 1 East to administration. Poor things. Poll that audience and see how many miss a meal or a break or go 12 hours without the luxury of a bathroom break. Ask them how many have a soda or a cup of coffee at their desk. They are exempt from the conditions suffered by those in the "trench."
I also agree with "Forest." These managers and administrators would benefit highly from a class on therapeutic communication with educated adults. Most educated adults do not respond to intimidation tactics. They do not respond to an environment where "tattle telling" is encouraged. They certainly do not respond to an environment where you may find your performance and professionalism called into question based on these "tattles" I was raised professionally in a place where people work together. They sort out their differences when they occur. Problems did not fester. They were addressed immediately. You moved on. Sometimes you agree to disagree. But because you are an educated adult, you can still work together. This is apparently unacceptable in the new er. Tell boss hog who the problems are... Are we adults or have we all landed in some crazy playground and are now giant first graders? Hasn't he heard of team building? Ye Gads!
I absolutely, positively disagree that those who are staying are doing it because they "like it." I am inclined to believe that it may be more because Cleveland and Greenwood are a little too far to drive everyday. Most of the "trench" workers have families at home and dread the thought of adding a long commute to the 12 hour shift mix. Instead, most of them come to work, hopeful that things will get a little better. Hopeful that nobody will make the work environment worse by "telling" some ridiculous story to the boss. Hopeful that people have grown up a little from the day before. Hopeful that they have looked in the mirror and made a commitment to be a little nicer to everyone. As impossible as it may seem, It is my sincere hope that they do move in that direction.
Of course "semi regular" may also be right. Those in the "trench" may love things the way they are. They may adore "chewing hay and spitting stubble." I think that it more likely that they are either hopeful for a better tomorrow, or have decided to suck it up. Of course behind door number three are those destined for promotion at DRMC. Not by virtue of their educational background. Not by their talents in the arena of team building. Not even because of the pay they'll accept. Definitely not because they have positive reviews from the "trench workers." Certainly not because they are capable of making a cocktail of the four, most likely it is because they have acquired a tolerance to and a talent in the performance of "analingus". It seems that is more of what it takes.
I have to agree with "Amazed" that if you are looking for the "fat" at DRMC... it ain't in the trenches! Most hospitals are run quite effectively with only three levels of employees: Administration, Managers and Staff. DRMC has created so many levels of management, they are in danger of running out of titles.
If they took one-third of the nurses from behind desks and put them on the floor to care for patients, they wouldn't even have a nursing shortage. Instead, they abuse the few remaining nurses who have been loyal throughout the acquisition nightmare, while paying exorbitant wages to travel nurses who couldn't care less about DRMC or its patients.
So, what have we gained from the merger of our two hospitals... fewer jobs, fewer physicians, fewer patients and fewer choices in health care.
Ray has given the exact same speech to every civic group who will listen, touting growth, development and the great things he has done for DRMC, and yet... we see nothing but a deteriorating health care system with a bleak future. When will we wake up?
While we continue to "snooze", I have a suggestion for Ray which might help him offset some of DRMC's growing fiscal woes:
In the spring of 2008, rent three buses. Load and escort all of your management "team" to your 240 acre "field of dreams" in south Greenville; give them all a "golden shovel" and LEAD them... in planting corn.
Forthright
I love the banter surrounding this blog. It promotes thought and entertainment. I think it also promotes a healthy dose of truth....
I do not totally disagree with the "semi regular reader"...
I think that you should look in the mirror everyday. You should reflect on the prior day. You should commit to doing your best the current day. You should want to play nice with your co-workers. You should want your patients to fair well. You should want to do the job you chose. It's true that mental misery serves no positive purpose. I think the patients would definitely agree. The problem is that should everyone in the "trench" that think things are going from bad to worse and have experienced a decline in their job satisfaction were to bail... there would be a lot of echoing in the halls sure to be left empty. If this advise is supported by administration and management, y'all better find some scrubs and kiss your 8-5 jobs goodbye. For that matter, I do not think that this reflection should only be advise for those in the "trench." I think that those in administration and management should partake in this daily recommend allowance of reflection, as well. Assuming, of course, their preoccupation with self promotion will permit time to do so.
I think doctors and nurses are interested in promoting positive patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. I think they would love to sit around and talk with the patients about their visit satisfaction. The problem is that they do not have the time. That is about to get a lot worse. The ER staff is being slashed. The tech positions are now cut in half. The people the nurses relied so heavily on to run patients around to xray, to take specimens to the lab, to enter orders into the computer, to file charts, answer the phones, give those ever important pillows to the patients will be gone. This role will now also be the job of nursing. Nurses didn't already have enough to do. So "semi regular" If you have any ideas how to accomplish all of this and promote positive patient experiences, I'm sure the staff in the ER would love to hear it. You don't have to shout it, either. Despite what you seem to think. There are no "high horses" to be seen. I agree that those in the "trench" lend to the patient's perception of their care. Absolutely, positively. Should it not be obvious, then to those in administration and management that patient satisfaction may benefit from a positive work environment???? HMMMMM....
No. Instead, add it the role of the nurse... They apparently do it not have anything to do... Hardly. Milling about is not a privilege of those in the "trench." It is absolutely only for management and administration. In those roles, most spend the entire day rushing from one "important" meeting to the other, looking exhausted as they wander from 1 East to administration. Poor things. Poll that audience and see how many miss a meal or a break or go 12 hours without the luxury of a bathroom break. Ask them how many have a soda or a cup of coffee at their desk. They are exempt from the conditions suffered by those in the "trench."
I also agree with "Forest." These managers and administrators would benefit highly from a class on therapeutic communication with educated adults. Most educated adults do not respond to intimidation tactics. They do not respond to an environment where "tattle telling" is encouraged. They certainly do not respond to an environment where you may find your performance and professionalism called into question based on these "tattles" I was raised professionally in a place where people work together. They sort out their differences when they occur. Problems did not fester. They were addressed immediately. You moved on. Sometimes you agree to disagree. But because you are an educated adult, you can still work together. This is apparently unacceptable in the new er. Tell boss hog who the problems are... Are we adults or have we all landed in some crazy playground and are now giant first graders? Hasn't he heard of team building? Ye Gads!
I absolutely, positively disagree that those who are staying are doing it because they "like it." I am inclined to believe that it may be more because Cleveland and Greenwood are a little too far to drive everyday. Most of the "trench" workers have families at home and dread the thought of adding a long commute to the 12 hour shift mix. Instead, most of them come to work, hopeful that things will get a little better. Hopeful that nobody will make the work environment worse by "telling" some ridiculous story to the boss. Hopeful that people have grown up a little from the day before. Hopeful that they have looked in the mirror and made a commitment to be a little nicer to everyone. As impossible as it may seem, It is my sincere hope that they do move in that direction.
Of course "semi regular" may also be right. Those in the "trench" may love things the way they are. They may adore "chewing hay and spitting stubble." I think that it more likely that they are either hopeful for a better tomorrow, or have decided to suck it up. Of course behind door number three are those destined for promotion at DRMC. Not by virtue of their educational background. Not by their talents in the arena of team building. Not even because of the pay they'll accept. Definitely not because they have positive reviews from the "trench workers." Certainly not because they are capable of making a cocktail of the four, most likely it is because they have acquired a tolerance to and a talent in the performance of "analingus". It seems that is more of what it takes.
I have to agree with "Amazed" that if you are looking for the "fat" at DRMC... it ain't in the trenches! Most hospitals are run quite effectively with only three levels of employees: Administration, Managers and Staff. DRMC has created so many levels of management, they are in danger of running out of titles.
If they took one-third of the nurses from behind desks and put them on the floor to care for patients, they wouldn't even have a nursing shortage. Instead, they abuse the few remaining nurses who have been loyal throughout the acquisition nightmare, while paying exorbitant wages to travel nurses who couldn't care less about DRMC or its patients.
So, what have we gained from the merger of our two hospitals... fewer jobs, fewer physicians, fewer patients and fewer choices in health care.
Ray has given the exact same speech to every civic group who will listen, touting growth, development and the great things he has done for DRMC, and yet... we see nothing but a deteriorating health care system with a bleak future. When will we wake up?
While we continue to "snooze", I have a suggestion for Ray which might help him offset some of DRMC's growing fiscal woes:
In the spring of 2008, rent three buses. Load and escort all of your management "team" to your 240 acre "field of dreams" in south Greenville; give them all a "golden shovel" and LEAD them... in planting corn.
Forthright
Sunday, September 23, 2007
"Forest Gump" has a Question...
Anonymous writer questions:
I have become a regular reader of this blog and i have to say it always offers very interesting opinions.. (because its all opinion). Well i'm about to give mine i guess. Well first off i have a few questions.
Number One Why the hell do u have to buy out your competition ( Kings Daughters) to prove you are the powerhouse. I believe that if you offer excellent service and provide great care, eventually the others will fall or at least not do enough business to make a difference.
I am under the firm belief that if The LEADER, CAPTAIN, or whatever you want to call him or her, were to treat people with respect and create an environment where people are happy and wake up everyday wanting to come to work you want have to worry about buying out the competition. The competition will either have to keep up or fall to the wayside.
It amazing how people go to school get a business degree and just think they know everything about running a business. Its not just that simple. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PEOPLE SKILLS (Which many people at DRMC do not have). IF you cant get along and make your employees happy whatever it takes you will never have a truly successful business. I can take a person that has no formal education in running anything, but if they are a people person or can take the time and effort to try to find ways to make there employees happy that business will run every other business of the same type in the ground.
Well thats enough about that.. I'm SCARED REALLY SCARED. The health care situation in greenville is scary, very scary. What do you do when u have doctors that are not formally trained in the setting they are working. ( for example Emergency Medicine). Thats frightening to me. I hope and pray everyday i do not have to be one of the ones that gets some of that substandard care.
The question i want answered is why did the experienced ER doctors leave in the first place, and why any experienced travel doctor says not NO to coming to DRMC but HELL NO... Is it that bad there.. Well i think so and many others think so... Like i have said earlier, the key to beating the competition and bringing in the money, (which im sure is the goal of DRMC) is to keep peace among the ranks.
If you cant trust your leader eventually the ship will be lost at sea because all the hands rowing will give up and the ship will go anyway it wants, (probably down). That has happened at DRMC, anybody and everybody that knew the way the ship handled, knew the ins and outs and had any type of knowledge is gone, (they have jumped shipped so to speak) so what do you do.
I dont know what needs to be done at DRMC, but i would guess the people need to storm the CAPTAIN'S Quarters and throw him overboard and start fresh. Thats what they did in the old days, you become stagnant and no good to anyone they replace you. I believe start at the top and work your way down, thats what needs to happen. Plain and simple.
Well in the words of the once famous FOREST GUMP "THATS ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT"
You are right "Forest". If a hospital provides excellent service and offers great care, it should not have to worry about competition. Actually, it should welcome it as a chance to "shine" in the light of others who compromise quality for profit.
The DRMC vs. KDH battle is one that goes back many years. When KDH was purchased by Community Health Systems, the battle really got fierce because unlike DRMC, KDH was now run by group of business professionals who specialized in developing small rural hospitals.
Over the period of 6 short years, they had rejuvenated the failing KDH into a quality health care facility with millions of dollars reinvested in physical improvements, technology and new physicians. The "little" hospital now became a great threat to DRMC who was consistently losing more and more patients, revenue and employees to KDH.
So, what to do? Healthy competition had ceased to be "healthy" for DRMC, who instead of investing money into patient care, simply added more layers of management and administration. Ray simply couldn't stand by and watch his (second) empire tumble. He had to act and act quickly... and improving the quality of patient care at DRMC would take far too long. So...
Ray's Epiphany: If you can't compete fairly in an open market, eliminate the competition...at any price (to the taxpayer). So, he duped five local bankers into loaning him twice what KDH was really worth, made a backdoor offer to CHS and they bit! Who wouldn't sell anything at a 100% profit?
Fast forward to present... after hemmoraging money for two years following the acquisition and local bankers getting a bit nervous about their "investments", Ray decided to "sell to the government" i.e. get a bail out loan from HUD. Surely, with all of the government's other boondoggles and frivolity, no one would object to dumping another $40 million into a dying hospital... well, that's what Ray thought anyway.
The last chapter of DRMC's saga has yet to be written, but I foresee a publication date in the very near future. As for Ray's "silent partner" in Uncle Sam... I wouldn't bet on him being silent much longer.
Forthright
I have become a regular reader of this blog and i have to say it always offers very interesting opinions.. (because its all opinion). Well i'm about to give mine i guess. Well first off i have a few questions.
Number One Why the hell do u have to buy out your competition ( Kings Daughters) to prove you are the powerhouse. I believe that if you offer excellent service and provide great care, eventually the others will fall or at least not do enough business to make a difference.
I am under the firm belief that if The LEADER, CAPTAIN, or whatever you want to call him or her, were to treat people with respect and create an environment where people are happy and wake up everyday wanting to come to work you want have to worry about buying out the competition. The competition will either have to keep up or fall to the wayside.
It amazing how people go to school get a business degree and just think they know everything about running a business. Its not just that simple. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PEOPLE SKILLS (Which many people at DRMC do not have). IF you cant get along and make your employees happy whatever it takes you will never have a truly successful business. I can take a person that has no formal education in running anything, but if they are a people person or can take the time and effort to try to find ways to make there employees happy that business will run every other business of the same type in the ground.
Well thats enough about that.. I'm SCARED REALLY SCARED. The health care situation in greenville is scary, very scary. What do you do when u have doctors that are not formally trained in the setting they are working. ( for example Emergency Medicine). Thats frightening to me. I hope and pray everyday i do not have to be one of the ones that gets some of that substandard care.
The question i want answered is why did the experienced ER doctors leave in the first place, and why any experienced travel doctor says not NO to coming to DRMC but HELL NO... Is it that bad there.. Well i think so and many others think so... Like i have said earlier, the key to beating the competition and bringing in the money, (which im sure is the goal of DRMC) is to keep peace among the ranks.
If you cant trust your leader eventually the ship will be lost at sea because all the hands rowing will give up and the ship will go anyway it wants, (probably down). That has happened at DRMC, anybody and everybody that knew the way the ship handled, knew the ins and outs and had any type of knowledge is gone, (they have jumped shipped so to speak) so what do you do.
I dont know what needs to be done at DRMC, but i would guess the people need to storm the CAPTAIN'S Quarters and throw him overboard and start fresh. Thats what they did in the old days, you become stagnant and no good to anyone they replace you. I believe start at the top and work your way down, thats what needs to happen. Plain and simple.
Well in the words of the once famous FOREST GUMP "THATS ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT"
You are right "Forest". If a hospital provides excellent service and offers great care, it should not have to worry about competition. Actually, it should welcome it as a chance to "shine" in the light of others who compromise quality for profit.
The DRMC vs. KDH battle is one that goes back many years. When KDH was purchased by Community Health Systems, the battle really got fierce because unlike DRMC, KDH was now run by group of business professionals who specialized in developing small rural hospitals.
Over the period of 6 short years, they had rejuvenated the failing KDH into a quality health care facility with millions of dollars reinvested in physical improvements, technology and new physicians. The "little" hospital now became a great threat to DRMC who was consistently losing more and more patients, revenue and employees to KDH.
So, what to do? Healthy competition had ceased to be "healthy" for DRMC, who instead of investing money into patient care, simply added more layers of management and administration. Ray simply couldn't stand by and watch his (second) empire tumble. He had to act and act quickly... and improving the quality of patient care at DRMC would take far too long. So...
Ray's Epiphany: If you can't compete fairly in an open market, eliminate the competition...at any price (to the taxpayer). So, he duped five local bankers into loaning him twice what KDH was really worth, made a backdoor offer to CHS and they bit! Who wouldn't sell anything at a 100% profit?
Fast forward to present... after hemmoraging money for two years following the acquisition and local bankers getting a bit nervous about their "investments", Ray decided to "sell to the government" i.e. get a bail out loan from HUD. Surely, with all of the government's other boondoggles and frivolity, no one would object to dumping another $40 million into a dying hospital... well, that's what Ray thought anyway.
The last chapter of DRMC's saga has yet to be written, but I foresee a publication date in the very near future. As for Ray's "silent partner" in Uncle Sam... I wouldn't bet on him being silent much longer.
Forthright
Friday, September 21, 2007
"Chew the Hay and Spit the Stubble"
"Semi-Regular Reader" offers the following:
This shouldn't be construed as an Internet flame, but since the DRMC discussions definitely draw lines in the sand, I have one question.
Of what professional quality are the doctors of DRMC or can that NOT be determined?
The rankings suggest you get mixed medical care. The outward migration numbers suggest the medical staff isn't trusted by non-emergency "customers." People planning heart surgery or other major treatments aren't weighing the corporate philosophy of hospital management into their decision of where to seek treatment. They want the best doctor they can find, not a good doctor backed by decent local marketing and town word-of-mouth.
Doctors departing DRMC in large numbers isn't good UNLESS replacements can better the medical care. That's no given - and unproven under hospital management - because DRMC's paid very high salaries in recruiting only to maintain sub-par results. If customers aren't seeking DRMC treatments, even under a monopolized local healthcare system, then those in the "trench" should look in the job performance mirror as well. It's only fair and is a reasonable request.
Another note: If you get up in the morning and absolutely dread going to your job, you owe it to yourself to, at least, look for other job opportunities. Your personal health and wellness isn't worth it and the services you're providing innocent patients can only suffer given the unconscious distraction of mental misery.
If you choose to "like it" and not leave it, then chew the hay and spit the stubble. Enough workers must obviously "like it" because the debate water is barely rippling except for Forthright's interest in the issue - which is good reading and a good communication forum (but not a journalistic outlet). It's a soapbox.
By the way, I like the idea of "Boss Hog" walking the ER and asking such customer service questions if privacy law permits. The questions posted by the commentator that should be asked by "Boss Hog" to patients should be asked by the nurses and doctors too.
And if patients complain of chatting, drinking and eating at the nurses' station - most of it is likely to be work related, but I'm not buying that there isn't enough loafing going around to make such patient complaints legitimate. The "High Horse" ain't that high, staff! Remember, the front line medical staff gives patients the impression of the care they're given. Hmm, on that one.
We should continue this discussion of alleged tyrants, tinker-bells, Bosses Hog and medical care. A "ship" as large as DRMC needs many oars and many rowers. Don't look exclusively at the Captain - but keep an eye up there!
The writer asks some very relevant questions about the quality of DRMC's physicians. The care provided is not always a question of "qualifications" as it is of "motivation". Here's the problem:
Let's say that I am an employed physician at DRMC with a guaranteed salary of $750,000 a year. I get paid $750K whether I see 25 patients a day or 2. I am not greedy, so I can live very comfortably on $750K a year in Greenville, MS. What is my motivation to work 12 -14 hours a day seeing patients when I could be on the golf course every day by 2:00 p.m.? None!
Physicians are no different from anyone else. It is noble to think that they are driven by the Hippocratic oath, but they also have personal lives, families and hobbies like the rest of us. At the end of the day, money is what gets us all out of bed in the morning... if you happen to truly love what you do, well, that's just icing on the cake.
Greenville is lucky to have as many good physicians as it has, given the underhanded politics that typically drive them away. We also have some physicians that should be barred from practice because of their incompetence and unethical practice. Ray and the "horsemen" of DRMC are well aware of these "dangerous docs", but continue to turn a blind eye to maintain their power as well as the facade that "all is well at DRMC."
The writer is also correct in stating that we can't simply blame the "Captain" for the plight of this ill-fated ship. Ray has many cronies, from supervisors to board members, whose hands reach just as deep into the county coffers to maintain their status in the "club".
I also commend the writer for recognizing the intent of this blog. Yes, it is a "soap-box" and not intended to be journalistic reporting of fact. It should be fun reading and I hope it is informative, but it is still a forum for views and opinions... some can be substantiated in fact and others may be purely personal perspectives.
Awareness of public issues is a good thing and participating in a blog discussion is actually quite fun. You can express your opinions with complete anonymity and your voice will be heard. Change will only occur when public voices unite.
Forthright
This shouldn't be construed as an Internet flame, but since the DRMC discussions definitely draw lines in the sand, I have one question.
Of what professional quality are the doctors of DRMC or can that NOT be determined?
The rankings suggest you get mixed medical care. The outward migration numbers suggest the medical staff isn't trusted by non-emergency "customers." People planning heart surgery or other major treatments aren't weighing the corporate philosophy of hospital management into their decision of where to seek treatment. They want the best doctor they can find, not a good doctor backed by decent local marketing and town word-of-mouth.
Doctors departing DRMC in large numbers isn't good UNLESS replacements can better the medical care. That's no given - and unproven under hospital management - because DRMC's paid very high salaries in recruiting only to maintain sub-par results. If customers aren't seeking DRMC treatments, even under a monopolized local healthcare system, then those in the "trench" should look in the job performance mirror as well. It's only fair and is a reasonable request.
Another note: If you get up in the morning and absolutely dread going to your job, you owe it to yourself to, at least, look for other job opportunities. Your personal health and wellness isn't worth it and the services you're providing innocent patients can only suffer given the unconscious distraction of mental misery.
If you choose to "like it" and not leave it, then chew the hay and spit the stubble. Enough workers must obviously "like it" because the debate water is barely rippling except for Forthright's interest in the issue - which is good reading and a good communication forum (but not a journalistic outlet). It's a soapbox.
By the way, I like the idea of "Boss Hog" walking the ER and asking such customer service questions if privacy law permits. The questions posted by the commentator that should be asked by "Boss Hog" to patients should be asked by the nurses and doctors too.
And if patients complain of chatting, drinking and eating at the nurses' station - most of it is likely to be work related, but I'm not buying that there isn't enough loafing going around to make such patient complaints legitimate. The "High Horse" ain't that high, staff! Remember, the front line medical staff gives patients the impression of the care they're given. Hmm, on that one.
We should continue this discussion of alleged tyrants, tinker-bells, Bosses Hog and medical care. A "ship" as large as DRMC needs many oars and many rowers. Don't look exclusively at the Captain - but keep an eye up there!
The writer asks some very relevant questions about the quality of DRMC's physicians. The care provided is not always a question of "qualifications" as it is of "motivation". Here's the problem:
Let's say that I am an employed physician at DRMC with a guaranteed salary of $750,000 a year. I get paid $750K whether I see 25 patients a day or 2. I am not greedy, so I can live very comfortably on $750K a year in Greenville, MS. What is my motivation to work 12 -14 hours a day seeing patients when I could be on the golf course every day by 2:00 p.m.? None!
Physicians are no different from anyone else. It is noble to think that they are driven by the Hippocratic oath, but they also have personal lives, families and hobbies like the rest of us. At the end of the day, money is what gets us all out of bed in the morning... if you happen to truly love what you do, well, that's just icing on the cake.
Greenville is lucky to have as many good physicians as it has, given the underhanded politics that typically drive them away. We also have some physicians that should be barred from practice because of their incompetence and unethical practice. Ray and the "horsemen" of DRMC are well aware of these "dangerous docs", but continue to turn a blind eye to maintain their power as well as the facade that "all is well at DRMC."
The writer is also correct in stating that we can't simply blame the "Captain" for the plight of this ill-fated ship. Ray has many cronies, from supervisors to board members, whose hands reach just as deep into the county coffers to maintain their status in the "club".
I also commend the writer for recognizing the intent of this blog. Yes, it is a "soap-box" and not intended to be journalistic reporting of fact. It should be fun reading and I hope it is informative, but it is still a forum for views and opinions... some can be substantiated in fact and others may be purely personal perspectives.
Awareness of public issues is a good thing and participating in a blog discussion is actually quite fun. You can express your opinions with complete anonymity and your voice will be heard. Change will only occur when public voices unite.
Forthright
Monday, September 17, 2007
New "Sheriff", but Fewer Docs in Town...
"Amazed" offers the following:
Delta Regional stays a topic on the tongues of deltans. What's happening in the ER is an even hotter topic. For some, it's because of the eyesore administration claims will be the "NEW ER" in the spring. For others on the inside, it's because, internally, the new administrative supported ER has arrived like tsunami.
Let me start by reminding readers that Healthcare professionals are few and far between. Doctors and nurses that are willing to relocate (and stay) here in the delta are almost as hard to find as that beach front property that someone is always trying to sell you in Nevada.
The ER has experienced a mass exodus in doctors. 4 resigned, 4 are left. What a nightmare. Dr. Mcleod is gone. It is a tragedy. She cared about the patients. She cared about nursing. She tried very hard to make a positive change. She worked diligently to improve the skills of the non-ER doctors. She kept the patients moving to prevent backlog. She fought against budget cuts. She went to bat for nursing. Her leaving is mourned by all that worked alongside her. The nursing shortage and vacant positions have been addressed, that's true. The misguided few in charge of this process filled most of the positions by hiring nurses, not based on their capacity to provide emergent care, but because they had a valid license and a willingness to come here. A good bit of them knew not what a crash cart was when they arrived, let alone the indications for usage. Most of them were not even interviewed on site, but rather over the phone. The Human Resources department made grand promises: high pay, sign-on bonuses, flexible schedules, no weekends, etc... A lot of the new hires are new grads. No worries, they hired an education coordinator to bring everybody up to speed. A very talented ER nurse with the experience to back up the position she was hired for. A mountain of a challenge.
Then came the arrival of the new director. A grand entrance, someone endorsed by administration, especially by the new administrator of the ER. Was that the smell of winds of change approaching? Or was that fire and brimstone, I can't tell the difference anymore.
Since the arrival of this new person, Boss Hog, a new plan has been introduced. The rollout of his plan talked about improving patient satisfaction (good), encouraging continuing education (good), balancing the schedule so the same number of nurses were working everyday (good), scheduling one on one meetings with everyone to get to know each other (ok, whatever) and finally a hint to other changes in position structure are coming at a later date (what?)
A "No Tolerance" attitude is thick in the air. "Like-it-or-leave-it" is his motto.
Patient satisfaction is terrible. I agree. the number isn't good. It also may not be the absolute indicator. The posted information via Avatar shows that the score is reflective of 37 respondents. The ER sees an average of 5000 patients a month. It seems that if one person looked at the big picture, they would see that this survey process is not well received by the community and clearly not responded to. If the administration would like to know what the patients think about the care they receive, here's an idea. Pursue a survey process that will illicit a better response. The current survey is lengthy. It has questions that are phrased in a manner that prompts negativity. It uses language and grammar not readily recognized by the average respondent. That should be blatantly obvious by the dialogue posted by patients that used the comments section of the survey. It presents in an envelope that looks like junk mail from Florida. It arrives three months after you visited the ER. Maybe a survey process that is specific for emergency departments is available. Have they pursued this? I doubt it. Better yet, maybe Boss Hog should come out onto the floor and talk to the patients during their visit. Were your needs met? Do you understand everything that happened during this visit? Do you have your discharge instructions? Reinforce the importance of following up with a regular practitioner. Did any of our team members go above and beyond? Can I answer any questions for you? It's so much easier to take the number at the face value and start the condemnation...
I feel that the majority of nurses do a great job meeting the needs of the patient. No matter what the complaint. Departments that are specifically developed within hospital organizations to ensure quality improvement are not often in the ER investigating sentinel events. At the end of the patient visit, the patients issues and ailments have been investigated. They have been addressed, when valid. They have received medication appropriate for the diagnosis. They have received prescriptions and explanations. They have received referrals to primary care providers, or to specialists. If warranted, consultation for the same have been conducted during the visit. Amazingly, all of this has occurred in a very short turn around time, in comparison to other same sized facilities. The patient may not have received a pillow or warm cocoa. Those items are in short supply. They may have heard talking at the nurses station. A lot is happening out there. They may have even seen a employee with a beverage at the nurse's station. They are thirsty. They are working hard for the patients. They aren't doing it for the recognition from the hospital. It doesn't exist. They aren't doing it for administration, that's for sure. They learned a long time ago that no positive recognition comes from down those back hallways. No eating, No drinking, No talking loud, no laughing. Don't you complain about it, either. No tolerance. Straighten up, or else. Like-it-or-leave-it.
Yes, there are some folks with a bad attitude. There are some that are unpleasant to the point that everyone around them is miserable. There are some who lack the inclination to do much at all. There are some who think that "it" is not there job. There are some who wouldn't help out a fellow employee in any circumstances. There are some who call in often and for no apparent reason. They are unreliable. They are unpleasant. They are not the one you want standing next to you in a trauma. They are bad apples. I'm not one to say that it is advisable to foster an environment where the bad apples have spoiled the bushell. I would lean more towards the inclination they be plucked out, should they prove incapable of positive re-enforcement towards a more suitable disposition. Most team members agree with this ideation. They would rather work short that work with a bad apple. Boss Hog wants to rid the department of the bad apples. Great. Find them, pluck them, toss them. Do not accomplish this by encouraging a tattle tale relationship internally. They don't need a mole. They need support and encouragement. Here's a thought. Maybe boss hog should come out onto the floor. In scrubs. Ready to work alongside. He'd see the issues. He'd see the lazy. He'd see the bad apples.
Instead, he has encouraged the employees to tell him if anyone is unpleasant. They will be issued counseling memos. No need to investigate claims, counsel away. Like-it-or-leave-it. He has balanced the schedule by changing the nurse's shifts and not telling them. Be at work, or else. Like-it-or-leave-it. He has done away with the nursing educator position. No need for the new grad and the non ER nurses to have any sort of education or orientation. Like-it-or-leave-it! He has chopped ancillary staffing, making all of the tech's and unit clerks, reapply and interview for the 8 positions of the 16 or so originally available.
That's a major disruption in the functional capacity of the team. Not to mention the 8 people will lose their job. No worries. Like-it-or-leave-it. The changes are repulsive. There are 460 odd thousand nursing positions available across the country. They are located in places where people are grateful for care. This is the delta, number one in STD's, poverty, teen pregnancy, illiteracy. High on the stats lists for gang violence & frivolous law suits. I think you might be overstepping a little by "like-it-or-leave-it." You may be surprised at the number ready to leave it. How do you think patient satisfaction will be then? How balanced will the schedule be?
"Like it or leave it" has always been the mantra of Ray and his lot. He has duped the entire county into supporting his personal empire. Anyone who questions his authority is either terminated (with hush money) or put on the payroll (with even more hush money).
Not only have 4 of the ER docs fled, but the 4 that remain are not truly emergency care physicians. So, while DRMC continues to bill itself as a level II trauma center (for state funding reasons), they are little more than a "Doc-in-the-Box" when it comes to actual patient care... a little scary?
"Leadership" starts with understanding what truly motivates people to work. Even before wages, the first concern of most employees today is flexibility in the workplace. Health care professionals are scarce and as the writer notes, they can work anywhere they choose. So, the "like-it-or-leave-it" approach simply won't work in the Mississippi Delta! Any nurse who cannot find another job within 2 hours of his/her resignation... is simply not looking.
Ray and DRMC are in BIG trouble. I am sure that the new "Sheriff" is just another attempt for Ray to exhibit his rule by intimidation and remind us all that He is the boss! There are many excellent, long-time employees of DRMC who have suffered under Ray's tyrannical rule for far too long. It is time for a change!
If you wake up each day and dread going to work... there is a problem. Become active in changing things for the better and DRMC can once again become a quality health care facility AND a good place to work. This blog is dedicated to inspiring people to make positive changes for themselves and their communities.
DRMC will never improve until the employees, citizens and public officials get actively involved and demand change.
Forthright
Delta Regional stays a topic on the tongues of deltans. What's happening in the ER is an even hotter topic. For some, it's because of the eyesore administration claims will be the "NEW ER" in the spring. For others on the inside, it's because, internally, the new administrative supported ER has arrived like tsunami.
Let me start by reminding readers that Healthcare professionals are few and far between. Doctors and nurses that are willing to relocate (and stay) here in the delta are almost as hard to find as that beach front property that someone is always trying to sell you in Nevada.
The ER has experienced a mass exodus in doctors. 4 resigned, 4 are left. What a nightmare. Dr. Mcleod is gone. It is a tragedy. She cared about the patients. She cared about nursing. She tried very hard to make a positive change. She worked diligently to improve the skills of the non-ER doctors. She kept the patients moving to prevent backlog. She fought against budget cuts. She went to bat for nursing. Her leaving is mourned by all that worked alongside her. The nursing shortage and vacant positions have been addressed, that's true. The misguided few in charge of this process filled most of the positions by hiring nurses, not based on their capacity to provide emergent care, but because they had a valid license and a willingness to come here. A good bit of them knew not what a crash cart was when they arrived, let alone the indications for usage. Most of them were not even interviewed on site, but rather over the phone. The Human Resources department made grand promises: high pay, sign-on bonuses, flexible schedules, no weekends, etc... A lot of the new hires are new grads. No worries, they hired an education coordinator to bring everybody up to speed. A very talented ER nurse with the experience to back up the position she was hired for. A mountain of a challenge.
Then came the arrival of the new director. A grand entrance, someone endorsed by administration, especially by the new administrator of the ER. Was that the smell of winds of change approaching? Or was that fire and brimstone, I can't tell the difference anymore.
Since the arrival of this new person, Boss Hog, a new plan has been introduced. The rollout of his plan talked about improving patient satisfaction (good), encouraging continuing education (good), balancing the schedule so the same number of nurses were working everyday (good), scheduling one on one meetings with everyone to get to know each other (ok, whatever) and finally a hint to other changes in position structure are coming at a later date (what?)
A "No Tolerance" attitude is thick in the air. "Like-it-or-leave-it" is his motto.
Patient satisfaction is terrible. I agree. the number isn't good. It also may not be the absolute indicator. The posted information via Avatar shows that the score is reflective of 37 respondents. The ER sees an average of 5000 patients a month. It seems that if one person looked at the big picture, they would see that this survey process is not well received by the community and clearly not responded to. If the administration would like to know what the patients think about the care they receive, here's an idea. Pursue a survey process that will illicit a better response. The current survey is lengthy. It has questions that are phrased in a manner that prompts negativity. It uses language and grammar not readily recognized by the average respondent. That should be blatantly obvious by the dialogue posted by patients that used the comments section of the survey. It presents in an envelope that looks like junk mail from Florida. It arrives three months after you visited the ER. Maybe a survey process that is specific for emergency departments is available. Have they pursued this? I doubt it. Better yet, maybe Boss Hog should come out onto the floor and talk to the patients during their visit. Were your needs met? Do you understand everything that happened during this visit? Do you have your discharge instructions? Reinforce the importance of following up with a regular practitioner. Did any of our team members go above and beyond? Can I answer any questions for you? It's so much easier to take the number at the face value and start the condemnation...
I feel that the majority of nurses do a great job meeting the needs of the patient. No matter what the complaint. Departments that are specifically developed within hospital organizations to ensure quality improvement are not often in the ER investigating sentinel events. At the end of the patient visit, the patients issues and ailments have been investigated. They have been addressed, when valid. They have received medication appropriate for the diagnosis. They have received prescriptions and explanations. They have received referrals to primary care providers, or to specialists. If warranted, consultation for the same have been conducted during the visit. Amazingly, all of this has occurred in a very short turn around time, in comparison to other same sized facilities. The patient may not have received a pillow or warm cocoa. Those items are in short supply. They may have heard talking at the nurses station. A lot is happening out there. They may have even seen a employee with a beverage at the nurse's station. They are thirsty. They are working hard for the patients. They aren't doing it for the recognition from the hospital. It doesn't exist. They aren't doing it for administration, that's for sure. They learned a long time ago that no positive recognition comes from down those back hallways. No eating, No drinking, No talking loud, no laughing. Don't you complain about it, either. No tolerance. Straighten up, or else. Like-it-or-leave-it.
Yes, there are some folks with a bad attitude. There are some that are unpleasant to the point that everyone around them is miserable. There are some who lack the inclination to do much at all. There are some who think that "it" is not there job. There are some who wouldn't help out a fellow employee in any circumstances. There are some who call in often and for no apparent reason. They are unreliable. They are unpleasant. They are not the one you want standing next to you in a trauma. They are bad apples. I'm not one to say that it is advisable to foster an environment where the bad apples have spoiled the bushell. I would lean more towards the inclination they be plucked out, should they prove incapable of positive re-enforcement towards a more suitable disposition. Most team members agree with this ideation. They would rather work short that work with a bad apple. Boss Hog wants to rid the department of the bad apples. Great. Find them, pluck them, toss them. Do not accomplish this by encouraging a tattle tale relationship internally. They don't need a mole. They need support and encouragement. Here's a thought. Maybe boss hog should come out onto the floor. In scrubs. Ready to work alongside. He'd see the issues. He'd see the lazy. He'd see the bad apples.
Instead, he has encouraged the employees to tell him if anyone is unpleasant. They will be issued counseling memos. No need to investigate claims, counsel away. Like-it-or-leave-it. He has balanced the schedule by changing the nurse's shifts and not telling them. Be at work, or else. Like-it-or-leave-it. He has done away with the nursing educator position. No need for the new grad and the non ER nurses to have any sort of education or orientation. Like-it-or-leave-it! He has chopped ancillary staffing, making all of the tech's and unit clerks, reapply and interview for the 8 positions of the 16 or so originally available.
That's a major disruption in the functional capacity of the team. Not to mention the 8 people will lose their job. No worries. Like-it-or-leave-it. The changes are repulsive. There are 460 odd thousand nursing positions available across the country. They are located in places where people are grateful for care. This is the delta, number one in STD's, poverty, teen pregnancy, illiteracy. High on the stats lists for gang violence & frivolous law suits. I think you might be overstepping a little by "like-it-or-leave-it." You may be surprised at the number ready to leave it. How do you think patient satisfaction will be then? How balanced will the schedule be?
"Like it or leave it" has always been the mantra of Ray and his lot. He has duped the entire county into supporting his personal empire. Anyone who questions his authority is either terminated (with hush money) or put on the payroll (with even more hush money).
Not only have 4 of the ER docs fled, but the 4 that remain are not truly emergency care physicians. So, while DRMC continues to bill itself as a level II trauma center (for state funding reasons), they are little more than a "Doc-in-the-Box" when it comes to actual patient care... a little scary?
"Leadership" starts with understanding what truly motivates people to work. Even before wages, the first concern of most employees today is flexibility in the workplace. Health care professionals are scarce and as the writer notes, they can work anywhere they choose. So, the "like-it-or-leave-it" approach simply won't work in the Mississippi Delta! Any nurse who cannot find another job within 2 hours of his/her resignation... is simply not looking.
Ray and DRMC are in BIG trouble. I am sure that the new "Sheriff" is just another attempt for Ray to exhibit his rule by intimidation and remind us all that He is the boss! There are many excellent, long-time employees of DRMC who have suffered under Ray's tyrannical rule for far too long. It is time for a change!
If you wake up each day and dread going to work... there is a problem. Become active in changing things for the better and DRMC can once again become a quality health care facility AND a good place to work. This blog is dedicated to inspiring people to make positive changes for themselves and their communities.
DRMC will never improve until the employees, citizens and public officials get actively involved and demand change.
Forthright
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Follow the Spray-Painted Road...
"Tencent" changes the subject:
I'm going to veer away from the county story (not that it not interesting and certainly deserves public discussion) and I want to comment on something else I read in the paper tonight. Mayor Hudson's new health initiative.
Are there that many people in Greenville that need to be told to get off of their duffs and walk? I see walkers and joggers all the time in my travels around town. Who is the mayor trying to point to with this initiative? My parents and their neighbors used to walk every evening for their health. Until the crime got too bad.
Marking walking paths in the streets is just as bad as putting signs on the people saying MUG ME, MUG ME! The plan would probably work in some neighborhoods, but not all. Nope. I think the mayor is just trying to add a shiny star to her list of political brouha.
And if the mayor is going to list meals from local eateries, I'd like to see the break down of calories, fats (saturated, unsaturated, transfats), carbs, sugars, sodium, fiber, cholesterol, vitamins. There are more people in Greenville that are subject to stroke and heart failure than those worrying about having their thick thighs show up at a social. Any meal posted by the mayor should be reviewed by a dietitian for it's values.
Exercise should be a daily part of anyone's regime. But not set down by city workers spray painting streets.
"Tencent"
I must admit that I was a bit amused by the "simplicity" of Mayor Hudson's "walking trails". If spray-painting a street makes it a walking trail, we should bill Greenville in August as a "public sauna".
I commend the mayor's efforts to stress the importance of exercise and good health, but the writer makes a valid point about crime in our city. This is the perfect time of year to be out walking, but safety is a major concern.
Okay... let's get out and enjoy the Blues this week! Like it or not, this event does bring in a lot of revenue for Greenville and has put us on the map. It is an important part of our heritage as "Deltans", because even if you don't enjoy listening to the "blues", we all know how to sing'em!
Forthright
I'm going to veer away from the county story (not that it not interesting and certainly deserves public discussion) and I want to comment on something else I read in the paper tonight. Mayor Hudson's new health initiative.
Are there that many people in Greenville that need to be told to get off of their duffs and walk? I see walkers and joggers all the time in my travels around town. Who is the mayor trying to point to with this initiative? My parents and their neighbors used to walk every evening for their health. Until the crime got too bad.
Marking walking paths in the streets is just as bad as putting signs on the people saying MUG ME, MUG ME! The plan would probably work in some neighborhoods, but not all. Nope. I think the mayor is just trying to add a shiny star to her list of political brouha.
And if the mayor is going to list meals from local eateries, I'd like to see the break down of calories, fats (saturated, unsaturated, transfats), carbs, sugars, sodium, fiber, cholesterol, vitamins. There are more people in Greenville that are subject to stroke and heart failure than those worrying about having their thick thighs show up at a social. Any meal posted by the mayor should be reviewed by a dietitian for it's values.
Exercise should be a daily part of anyone's regime. But not set down by city workers spray painting streets.
"Tencent"
I must admit that I was a bit amused by the "simplicity" of Mayor Hudson's "walking trails". If spray-painting a street makes it a walking trail, we should bill Greenville in August as a "public sauna".
I commend the mayor's efforts to stress the importance of exercise and good health, but the writer makes a valid point about crime in our city. This is the perfect time of year to be out walking, but safety is a major concern.
Okay... let's get out and enjoy the Blues this week! Like it or not, this event does bring in a lot of revenue for Greenville and has put us on the map. It is an important part of our heritage as "Deltans", because even if you don't enjoy listening to the "blues", we all know how to sing'em!
Forthright
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Show Me the Money!
Exerpt from Delta Democrat Times:
A significant drop in the county's automobile tax roll assessment has many officials looking for answers. During the Washington County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, county Tax Assessor John Greco presented members with the official September countywide tax roll. In his presentation, Greco reported a dramatic drop in the assessed value of automobiles - approximately $2.9 million - in two months.
“Obviously, there is something wrong here,” Greco told supervisors. In July, Greco submitted to the board a preliminary tax roll, by which the county set its fiscal budget. That report contained the assessments on real property, personal property, mobile home property, public utilities and automobile property. Of those properties, Greco is responsible for generating the figures for real, personal and mobile home properties, as well as county public utilities.
The tax collector's office is responsible for submitting to the assessor's office the figures pertaining to automobile property, after which Greco will compile those figures with the other assessments to create a total county assessment. A final tax roll assessment is then presented to the board in September. In July, the tax collector submitted an assessment figure of $55,531,296 for automobiles. For the September roll, the tax collector submitted an assessment figure of $52,583,174 - a difference of nearly $3 million in less than two months.
“How this happened, I just don't know,” Greco told the board. Washington County Tax Collector Patricia Lee told the Delta Democrat Times this morning that although she knew the reason behind the dramatic drop, she did not wish to comment on it further.
Since Lee took office in 2004, the county's assessed value for automobiles has dropped approximately $7.5 million from a value of $60,205,033 in 2004 to a value of $52,583,174, as of the September 2007 rolls. During the meeting Tuesday, board attorney Willie Griffin suggested that supervisors contact the Mississippi Tax Commission and ask for the agency to investigate the matter.
Surely there is no relationship between this "short-fall" and the previous indictments of four employees of the Tax Collector's office?
Let's see...we have lost $7.5 million dollars of tax revenue in the three years that Patricia Lee has been Tax Collector; Ms. Lee states that she knows the reason for the lack of funds...BUT... she does not wish to comment on it further...Duh?
Is this our idea of public accountability? We certainly wouldn't want to make Ms. Lee uncomfortable by asking her where the $7.5 million dollars went. Perhaps the state tax commission will be "less considerate" of Ms. Lee's feelings when they ask her to pony up for the missing revenue!
This is a prime example of why Greeville has become the laughing stock of the Delta. We elect incompetent, irresponsible stooges to manage the fiduciary affairs of our city, and then are simply aghast when they show their true colors.
So, now we have uncovered corruption and incompetence in our county government, health care system and public education systems! Unbelievable???
No, I believe in Greenville!
Forthright
A significant drop in the county's automobile tax roll assessment has many officials looking for answers. During the Washington County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, county Tax Assessor John Greco presented members with the official September countywide tax roll. In his presentation, Greco reported a dramatic drop in the assessed value of automobiles - approximately $2.9 million - in two months.
“Obviously, there is something wrong here,” Greco told supervisors. In July, Greco submitted to the board a preliminary tax roll, by which the county set its fiscal budget. That report contained the assessments on real property, personal property, mobile home property, public utilities and automobile property. Of those properties, Greco is responsible for generating the figures for real, personal and mobile home properties, as well as county public utilities.
The tax collector's office is responsible for submitting to the assessor's office the figures pertaining to automobile property, after which Greco will compile those figures with the other assessments to create a total county assessment. A final tax roll assessment is then presented to the board in September. In July, the tax collector submitted an assessment figure of $55,531,296 for automobiles. For the September roll, the tax collector submitted an assessment figure of $52,583,174 - a difference of nearly $3 million in less than two months.
“How this happened, I just don't know,” Greco told the board. Washington County Tax Collector Patricia Lee told the Delta Democrat Times this morning that although she knew the reason behind the dramatic drop, she did not wish to comment on it further.
Since Lee took office in 2004, the county's assessed value for automobiles has dropped approximately $7.5 million from a value of $60,205,033 in 2004 to a value of $52,583,174, as of the September 2007 rolls. During the meeting Tuesday, board attorney Willie Griffin suggested that supervisors contact the Mississippi Tax Commission and ask for the agency to investigate the matter.
Surely there is no relationship between this "short-fall" and the previous indictments of four employees of the Tax Collector's office?
Let's see...we have lost $7.5 million dollars of tax revenue in the three years that Patricia Lee has been Tax Collector; Ms. Lee states that she knows the reason for the lack of funds...BUT... she does not wish to comment on it further...Duh?
Is this our idea of public accountability? We certainly wouldn't want to make Ms. Lee uncomfortable by asking her where the $7.5 million dollars went. Perhaps the state tax commission will be "less considerate" of Ms. Lee's feelings when they ask her to pony up for the missing revenue!
This is a prime example of why Greeville has become the laughing stock of the Delta. We elect incompetent, irresponsible stooges to manage the fiduciary affairs of our city, and then are simply aghast when they show their true colors.
So, now we have uncovered corruption and incompetence in our county government, health care system and public education systems! Unbelievable???
No, I believe in Greenville!
Forthright
Monday, September 03, 2007
A Vote of "No Confidence"
Anonymous said...
Hopefully after all the comments about questionable practices in the Leland School District there will be some investigation. Even if the school board is too passive to act on the allegations, maybe this information will find it's way to Jackson to someone with some authority.
Too bad Leland teachers can't just have a vote of no confidence like they did at Valley and got rid of their president. School board elections will be very important in November. There are two openings and this is the chance for Leland voters to take their school district back from the Greenville administrators who don't care how much we pay in taxes.
A vote of "no confidence" in our current political system is largely symbolic. It is simply a statement by citizens that they have lost confidence in a leader's ability to govern effectively. Its purpose is more to inform than impeach; however, it can be a very powerful message to board members, like in the recent case of MVSU President.
Leaders who are irresponsible or who have lost the confidence of the public they serve are essentially "lame ducks". As such, they become a liability to both the public and those who put them in power.
Look at Alberto Gonzalez. Once he had lost the "confidence" of both republican and democratic leaders alike, his history was written. He tried to delay the inevitable, at the embarrassment of the nation, until the President himself told him it was time to go.
However little faith we have in our democratic processes, they are there to let the public be heard. In the case of Dr. Richards, Leland residents need to address their school board with these issues and demand that they be investigated by an impartial third party.
The Board will have only two options: Refuse an investigation which would make them look complicitous and a bit arrogant; or, agree to the investigation, accepting their responsibility as board members... and let the chips fall where they may.
Forthright
Hopefully after all the comments about questionable practices in the Leland School District there will be some investigation. Even if the school board is too passive to act on the allegations, maybe this information will find it's way to Jackson to someone with some authority.
Too bad Leland teachers can't just have a vote of no confidence like they did at Valley and got rid of their president. School board elections will be very important in November. There are two openings and this is the chance for Leland voters to take their school district back from the Greenville administrators who don't care how much we pay in taxes.
A vote of "no confidence" in our current political system is largely symbolic. It is simply a statement by citizens that they have lost confidence in a leader's ability to govern effectively. Its purpose is more to inform than impeach; however, it can be a very powerful message to board members, like in the recent case of MVSU President.
Leaders who are irresponsible or who have lost the confidence of the public they serve are essentially "lame ducks". As such, they become a liability to both the public and those who put them in power.
Look at Alberto Gonzalez. Once he had lost the "confidence" of both republican and democratic leaders alike, his history was written. He tried to delay the inevitable, at the embarrassment of the nation, until the President himself told him it was time to go.
However little faith we have in our democratic processes, they are there to let the public be heard. In the case of Dr. Richards, Leland residents need to address their school board with these issues and demand that they be investigated by an impartial third party.
The Board will have only two options: Refuse an investigation which would make them look complicitous and a bit arrogant; or, agree to the investigation, accepting their responsibility as board members... and let the chips fall where they may.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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'...no 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.
Forthright
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'...no 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.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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?
Anonymous
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!
Forthright
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?
Anonymous
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!
Forthright
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."
"Non-smoker"
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!
Forthright
"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."
"Non-smoker"
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!
Forthright
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:
"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:
- Is it less costly to kill yourself with tar and nicotine than fried chicken?
- Should we prohibit the sale of cigarettes to obese people, since they already have one major health risk?
- 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:
- If you smoke, it is a political issue about personal freedoms, choices and rights.
- 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!
Forthright
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."
Forthright
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."
Forthright
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.
"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.Forthright
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Facts About the "Heart Center"
Here are a few "facts" from the most recent JCAHO survey of DRMC...
http://www.qualitycheck.org/qualityreport.aspx?hcoid=8050#
http://www.qualitycheck.org/qualityreport.aspx?hcoid=8050#
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:
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00050.pdf
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...
Forthright
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:
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00050.pdf
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...
Forthright
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.
Forthright
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.
Forthright
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
