National Children's Hospital Planning Issue

oppenheimer1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Emergency cases won't be dropped by car to the national childrens hospital. Its a treatment centre for those that are ill for a long time or those that are so ill they have been referred by another hospital, for specialist treatment.

It won't be a place to get your childs knee bandaged when he falls off his bike as some people think.

squod wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to run into towin with a sick child in my arms or wait for some bus to turn up when it feels like it. Or sit in traffic, or wait for a train.

See my post above. You really have no understanding of what the Childrens hospital will be.

Do parents currently dash off to Temple St with their sick children?

Anita Blow

squod wrote: »

No, its not. We could build a hospital now. We could have built one years ago on a greenfield site. As I said before this is another dead end for the childrens hospital. I don't need to wait for another four years to find that out.

A greenfield site out of the city doesn't make sense though. The NCH needs to be co-located with the other hospitals. That isn't an option.
You can talk about a hundred years down the line all you want, but it's irrelevant. For the foreseeable future, all the main hospitals in the country with their individual specialities are located in Dublin City, therefore the NCH needs to be aswell.

If a child is rushed into ED in the NCH at this greenfield site with burns and requires immediate surgery, do we wait for the Burns surgeon from James' to drive out to treat them?
If, by locating on the site of James' we can dramatically reduce the time that that child can be treated for their burns, is that not a better option?

What about a patient from one of the maternity hospitals that requires immediate referral for treatment to the NCH. With all the main maternity hospitals located in Dublin City, how do you suggest that a greenfield site an hour or so away is better than James' which would be less than 20 minutes away at most?

What about the NCH's role as a teaching hospital? How do you propose Undergrad teaching for example, be taught at a greenfield site out of the city when all 3 of the Medical Universities in the region are in Dublin City?

A greenfield site to grow into in the future would be nice, but it is in no way realistic when children's lives are on the line now.

squod

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do parents currently dash off to Temple St with their sick children?

Yes.

MadsL

squod wrote: »

Yes.

Half an hour of thinking for one word answer.

I'm out. Have a nice time.

squod

Anita Blow wrote: »

You can talk about a hundred years down the line all you want, but it's irrelevant. For the foreseeable future, all the main hospitals in the country with their individual specialities are located in Dublin City,

Here's what happened forty years ago.

The board of St. James's Hospital met for the first time in 1971 and the planning of the new hospital began. In the mid eighties the government's need to cut back on public spending brought about by the closure of Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital, Dr. Steeven's Hospital and the Royal City of Dublin Hospital in Baggot Street. Mercer's Hospital had already closed in 1983. Most of the services provided by these historic hospitals were incorporated into the rapidly developing St. James's Hospital

St. James's Hospital could disappear as fast as any of the others listed in that text. This is about planning a new service. Not about extending an old hospital. We could sit here all night and debate the pros and cons of the James site. I don't see this project as a goer.

Victor

squod wrote: »

St. James's Hospital could disappear as fast as any of the others listed in that text.

Only if someone can suddenly come up with another €500 million on top of the cost of the Children's hospital.

Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital (now offices), Dr. Steeven's Hospital (now offices) and Baggot Street (community hospital) and the Adelaide, Meath and National Children's hospitals (all now in Tallaght) were all undersized for use as hospitals on their own, being dependent on other hospitals for many of their core services.

Rigol

Well I'm a northsider and was previously in favor of Connolly. I see James option as best now. But I do worry about the short term view of siteing it in the middle of the city when its supposed to last so long.

If sim city has taught me anything..and i believe it has.. its that traffic will slow and quality if life will drop in the area, crime will result.
As for the mater site, right or wrong, good or bad, I think its ridiculous to hold back such a big and important investment for some shtty georgian houses ...:( nehhhh boo hoo ... culture ...old photos... Its not the acropolis or the taj mahal in that area.
That area isn't so great either and could benefit with modernizing.

Cheaper to dig up the precious "culture" (which comes secondary to the culture that is future generation kids imho) and move it, which you could probably do in a forthnight. So a stamp collector doesn't get to reflect on 1 or 2 minor pieces of history 40 years from now..this loss is worth the hundreds of millions and healthier kids. imho.

Will we have needlessly lost 1 child due to some georgian houses? 1 child generates more culture points across a lifetime anyway.

Also - enjoy the construction traffic for the next 4 years ya southside muppets.

BattleCorp

Anita Blow wrote: »

It's not probably the best way to go, it's the only way to go. We live in a tiny country and we just don't have the amount of specialist doctors needed to staff a hospital miles from the other established hospitals when we can easily locate the hospital near the others and allow them to share the staff as required.
As well as that it would make absolutely no sense to locate the National Children's hospital far away from the 3 main Maternity hospitals in the country.

You put forward an excellent post so thanks but I have one other thing to say about the bi/tri location hospital plan.

The hospital, if built in St. James's won't be a true tri located hospital because all three hospitals won't be connected. Yes, they will be close enough but will still be a apart (if that makes sense). You won't be able to wheel a sick child from one hospital to the other. An ambulance service will still be needed to transport patients around the different locations.

I just think we should be planning long term. Yes, a new hospital is urgent but we are going to have to build other hospitals eitherways. The Coombe is 200 years old and will have to be rebuilt. The other maternity hospitals are old too.

I think that we aren't thinking big enough or thinking long term.

Anita Blow

squod wrote: »

Here's what happened forty years ago.



St. James's Hospital could disappear as fast as any of the others listed in that text. This is about planning a new service. Not about extending an old hospital. We could sit here all night and debate the pros and cons of the James site. I don't see this project as a goer.

It doesn't change the fact that for the foreseeable future, all the required hospitals are located in the city. It is the largest hospital in the country which has received substantial investment in recent years so it's unlikely that it or any of the other Primary Hospitals will be going anywhere any time soon.
You just aren't grasping the reality that co-location is a necessity, not an option.
So far the only pro you've listed for locating out of the City is space to grow into down the line. Once again:
- The 3 Medical Universities are located in Dublin City. These will not re-locate out of the city.
- The 3 Maternity hospitals are located in the city. It was hoped the NCH could be tri-located with one of these. At the minimum it would need to be located near them. But you're proposing that not only is it not tri-located, but it's located nowhere near them.
- All the Primary Hospitals with their relevant specialities are located in the city. Locating far away from them isn't possible because we do not have enough doctors in each speciality to staff the NCH.
Going back to the child with burns example, one of the key factors in determining mortality for 0-2 year olds is the time from the site of the incident, to being treated in the hospital.
When there are actual lives at risk, this dream of a greenfield site miles outside of the city comes secondary. Sure, if ignore all of the realities above, a greenfield site might sound nice, but you can't ignore it.