The Observation Deck

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/inde ... short_home

Patients and their families want to be as close to home as possible when it comes to receiving medical care, especially when it comes to hospitalization. The support the patients receive from their friends and family in a familiar setting, helps their recuperation," Dr. Akram Boutros, president and CEO of MetroHealth, said in a statement.

Oh, but hospitals are obsolete!

Oh, Bridget, you silly girl.

Don't be ridiculous......if Metro had a hospital here, then "Those People" would be coming into town to get health care.
We certainly wouldn't want "those people" coming here spending their medical dollars in our community, and perhaps even shopping and dining at downtown establishments.
Mayor Summers was bold enough to step forward and nuke the idea.
It's the same "courage" he's shown on issues like pit bulls.

Right.

Exactly why the Clinic avoids the opioid crisis when assessing the community health needs.

Better to pretend it doesn't exist and go look at pretty pictures on a wall.

Just seeing this headline...

Honestly, I don't know how our elected officials and their puppet masters can leave their lovely homes.

dl meckes wrote:Honestly, I don't know how our elected officials and their puppet masters can leave their lovely homes.

They do so very easily.....Team Summers has no comprehension of the words "shame" or "mercy".
It's win at all costs, baby.

I envision a documentary covering this debacle... How a city could be hurt by greed & weak leadership. A documentary promoting civic involvement by everyone. This story regarding Metro opening in-patient hospitals is the ultimate validation that the Build Lakewoodites were wrong.

Is Councilman O'Malley going to look blindly past this? ...or is he going to address this during his community talk? I don't want a councilman to fight for unemployment coverage, I want a councilman that fights for jobs.

By going along with this tragic closure, great harm has come to our city. How could they claim no one was interested and then accept the RESTRICTIVE COVENANT as part of the master agreement?

I recall them saying way back in Jan. 2015 that small hospitals with fewer beds are not economically feasible. Seems that Metro has a different take on it.

Bridget Conant wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/inde ... short_home

Patients and their families want to be as close to home as possible when it comes to receiving medical care, especially when it comes to hospitalization. The support the patients receive from their friends and family in a familiar setting, helps their recuperation," Dr. Akram Boutros, president and CEO of MetroHealth, said in a statement.

Oh, but hospitals are obsolete!

Ahh, the good ole days of community hospitals. It seems the trend is reversing! (IF it was a trend in the first place)

Metro would have been a great partner for Lakewood to have in the medical industry. They (Metro) are obviously adjusting to patient's needs with compassion, as opposed to the Clinic who is more interested in chasing the almighty $.

Dan Alaimo wrote:I recall them saying way back in Jan. 2015 that small hospitals with fewer beds are not economically feasible. Seems that Metro has a different take on it.

A closed decision-making process, which discourages any different take, is the biggest recurrent problem of our city.

This is the full significance of what many people have referred to as a "flawed process." The flaw is fundamental, not incidental.

The fundamental flaw is that the process follows the outcome, rather than the other way around. That's why Lakewood repeatedly hears explanations that shift around, or that are so absurd as to demean both the messenger and the audience. This is what results when you privately choose what outcome you want, then try to reverse-engineer a public reasoning for it afterward. You get explanations which are a poor fit with what's actually happening.

The story which would neatly fit reality, and which is always easiest to keep straight, is what actually happened. But here, again, a closed decision-making process keeps creating problems. If you want to control the outcome, but don't want to admit this is what you're doing (if, e.g., you want to close an institution that people don't want closed) you can't just explain what actually happened. You have to make up other explanations (e.g., we don't want this outcome, either, but nothing else is viable).

When, inevitably, people notice that those explanations don't add up, they stop trusting you and begin to demand evidence of what actually happened. At which point, you have to resist those demands. Which just begins a new round of doing something you want, making up public justifications for it, and spurring more distrust when those too prove unconvincing.

This is not a cycle that self-corrects. There isn't a step at which things "settle down" and the problem goes away of its own. Breaking the cycle is the only dependable resolution, here.

It will be painful. It will only get more painful the longer that it's postponed.

mjkuhns wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:I recall them saying way back in Jan. 2015 that small hospitals with fewer beds are not economically feasible. Seems that Metro has a different take on it.

A closed decision-making process, which discourages any different take, is the biggest recurrent problem of our city.
This is the full significance of what many people have referred to as a "flawed process." The flaw is fundamental, not incidental.

The fundamental flaw is that the process follows the outcome, rather than the other way around. That's why Lakewood repeatedly hears explanations that shift around, or that are so absurd as to demean both the messenger and the audience. This is what results when you privately choose what outcome you want, then try to reverse-engineer a public reasoning for it afterward. You get explanations which are a poor fit with what's actually happening.

The story which would neatly fit reality, and which is always easiest to keep straight, is what actually happened. But here, again, a closed decision-making process keeps creating problems. If you want to control the outcome, but don't want to admit this is what you're doing (if, e.g., you want to close an institution that people don't want closed) you can't just explain what actually happened. You have to make up other explanations (e.g., we don't want this outcome, either, but nothing else is viable).

When, inevitably, people notice that those explanations don't add up, they stop trusting you and begin to demand evidence of what actually happened. At which point, you have to resist those demands. Which just begins a new round of doing something you want, making up public justifications for it, and spurring more distrust when those too prove unconvincing.

This is not a cycle that self-corrects. There isn't a step at which things "settle down" and the problem goes away of its own. Breaking the cycle is the only dependable resolution, here. It will be painful. It will only get more painful the longer that it's postponed.

Lying ain't easy.

cmager wrote: Lying ain't easy.

Sure it (lying) is (easy). Keeping track of the lies is the tough part!

During the time of the hospital "debate," I thought about what compromise would look like, and I envisioned some version of the Parma center now run by Metro, and formerly by HealthSpan/Kaiser. It is a truly comprehensive outpatient facility, unlike the comparatively limited services planned for Lakewood. It is not a hospital, but soon it will be.

Dan Alaimo wrote:During the time of the hospital "debate," I thought about what compromise would look like, and I envisioned some version of the Parma center now run by Metro, and formerly by HealthSpan/Kaiser. It is a truly comprehensive outpatient facility, unlike the comparatively limited services planned for Lakewood. It is not a hospital, but soon it will be.

You were dreaming. You and half the residents of this city who were paying attention

From day one, this was a Cleveland Clinic deal that the mayor and his administration rubber stamped. No other alternatives were ever envisioned; in fact, they were blocked.

Why do you think the city is fighting so hard to keep records of meetings and emails hidden?

Why, as Mark Kindt noted, did lawyers not associated with the city, but with another entity, show up at the records mediation hearing in an attempt to influence the outcome - dpecifically to advocate for the records to be kept confidential.

The truth will soon be revealed.