This community opinion was contributed by Rob Bernosky. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BenitoLink or other affiliated contributors. Lea este artículo en español aquí.
Hazel Hawkins has several big problems that can be easily solved, and this would include the issue of safety. At present, the chief medical officer reports to the chief executive officer. The problem with this is it means the CEO has control over the chief medical officer and their employment. As we have observed over the past few years, the administration is ruthless in destroying anyone that criticizes them. So if the chief medical officer were to bring to the administration’s attention, unsafe or otherwise bad practices that made the administration look bad for implementing them, his or her job would be at risk. In fact, we have seen that happen.
Without rehashing too much what has been previously written and what will undoubtedly come out in the $250 million lawsuit, Hazel Hawkins Hospital hired “the best surgeon this hospital has seen in decades” (said another hospital physician). However, that best surgeon was critical of certain practices he thought were unsafe or otherwise improper that may have involved a relative and other friends of the CEO. As what studies have shown, surgeons typically express their frustrations when things are not right. When the patient is under the knife there may be complications the surgeon must navigate, another surgery with a worried family waiting, and timing always being important with anesthesiology and everything else going on in the operating room. My understanding is occasionally this best surgeon occasionally expressed frustrations over potentially unsafe and sub-optimal practices that made others look bad. Those looking bad became defensive, causing them to complain, leading to gross overreactions by the CEO to what is typical behavior of surgeons. The CEO used this as a pretext to fire “the best surgeon this hospital has seen in decades” when he became an elected board member. What CEO would want a person with impeccable medical and patient expertise overseeing them when the CEO has no medical-patient background and seemingly allows unsafe and otherwise bad practices? This is especially so considering the CEO being the highest public official by far, at over $450,000 per year. There’s a lot to protect there.
The protection of the administration is part of the culture of Hazel Hawkins Hospital; employees of the hospital go on social media and attack me outing what is going on there. I have never seen that occur with any other entity. Employees have the same freedom-of-speech rights as anyone else, but midday posts suggest they are doing it on hospital time.
The remedy is for the chief medical officer to report directly to the hospital board, so that he or she can make the best decisions and not be constantly worried about losing their job. Having 6 individuals (1 chief medical officer and 5 board members) discussing safety and best practice concerns and not necessarily having relatives involved or otherwise being neutral, can lead to a much better Hazel Hawkins Hospital than we have today.
BenitoLink invites all community members to share their ideas and opinions. By registering as a BenitoLink user in the top right corner of our home page and agreeing to follow our Terms of Use, you can write counter opinions or share your insights on current issues.