On the same morning, the Free Press carried two pieces written from opposite vantage points, arriving at the same locked door.
One year of digital access for only $205*
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
On the same morning, the Free Press carried two pieces written from opposite vantage points, arriving at the same locked door.
On the same morning, the Free Press carried two pieces written from opposite vantage points, arriving at the same locked door.
Charles Bernstein, writing as a gastroenterologist, described a nurse-practitioner program at Health Sciences Centre that gave patients with inflammatory bowel disease somewhere to turn before their illness forced them to an emergency room. It was then not funded to continue, and it ended. A service that had been approved, put in place, and shown to work was allowed to lapse.
Tom Brodbeck, writing as a columnist, described Shared Health, an organization created eight years ago as a fourth layer of administration added to the three the system already had — Manitoba Health, the regional authorities, and hospital administrations. He asked what this layer has done for patient care that those three could not, found no one able to answer, and concluded that the province should either make the case or let the structure go.
One writer watched something that worked disappear. The other watched something no one can justify persist. Their accounts are two symptoms of one disease.
Consider what each account demonstrates. In the first, a program produced results and nothing in the structure was obliged to act on them. In the second, a structure consumed resources for eight years and nothing in the structure was obliged to show what was bought. No decision is fixed to an identifiable office, no one required to answer for the outcome, and no answer owed to any party able to compel a change.
That is the circuit the whole question turns on. Responsibility must first attach to a specific office, so the decision has an owner. That owner must then answer to a party outside its own chain, whose duty runs to the patient rather than the institution, and which holds a real lever able to require a change. Only an answer owed to such a party carries a consequence.
A single patient’s path now crosses Shared Health, a regional authority, a hospital administration, primary care, and whatever community service is meant to receive them next, across separate sites and separate regions. Each body owns a segment. None owns the path. Ask any office in the chain who owns the patient’s passage through the whole, and each points to the segment beside it.
“That patient is mine” is the sentence the structure is built never to require.
That bottleneck is now on the front page, behind it the longest emergency waits on record — more than 13 hours for one patient in 10, and a typical wait, now, of four-and-a-half, numbers unthinkable a decade ago. The ward bed held by a patient who is safe but in the wrong place, while the patient who needs that bed waits, is real, it is well-drawn, and it is still the symptom.
This is why the emergency room keeps returning as the subject. It is not where the failure begins. It is where the failure arrives. A bed that is not there, a program that is gone, a structure that cannot show its worth, each lands in the end on a stretcher in a hallway.
Treating the symptom, in Bernstein’s phrase, will not reach the disease.
Source: Read the original article on www.winnipegfreepress.com
Written by https://futureknowledge.in/
