I recently developed pain in the sole of my right foot when I was out of town. Years ago, when I was running marathons, I had a similar pain, which was diagnosed as plantar fasciits: inflammation of the connective tissue in the foot.
I thought this pain was plantar fasciitis as well, but I wanted to be sure. I went to a local medical clinic and saw the physician assistant. He also thought plantar fasciitis was the correct diagnosis, so he gave me instructions on how to care for it. Just to be certain, though, he also ordered an X-ray of my foot.
The radiology tech positioned my foot on the table, gently prodded it this way and that, and took three pictures. He sent them electronically to the radiologist.
That evening, the PA informed me the radiologist had reported that the X-ray was normal, and I should follow the instructions for care of plantar fasciitis.
This little scenario contains at least half a dozen points where the quality of care matters.
Did I provide the PA with an accurate history?
Did he do an appropriate physical examination?
Did the radiology technician position my foot correctly, set the equipment accurately, and transmit the data properly?
Was the room in which the X-ray was taken comfortable and secure?
Was the radiologist qualified to read the X-ray?
Did the PA integrate all the data, make the right diagnosis, and give me the right instructions?
Of these six critical choice points, the most important is the third one—the skill and care provided by the radiology technician. If he had not done his job correctly, the radiologist could not have correctly interpreted the X-ray and the PA would have relied on inaccurate information.
The least important is the fourth one. The room was sparse and functional. A certificate in a plastic frame on the wall confirmed that the equipment and facility had met the relevant standards. The plain appearance of the room had no influence on the diagnosis or treatment of my sore foot.
Now, if we were talking about mammograms instead of X-rays of a sore foot, the importance of this issue increases.
Any woman who has had a mammogram will tell you that it is the skill of the technician that makes the difference between a stressful experience that is just barely tolerable, or a horrible experience where she walks out saying, “I will never come back to this place again.” The quality of the carpet is irrelevant.
Any radiologist will tell you that the signs of early breast cancer on a mammogram are subtle. The radiology technician is entirely responsible for both the technical aspects of the examination and the attention given to positioning and assisting the patient. Accuracy in taking the X-ray yields accuracy in the interpretation of the X-ray.
The Park Hospital District Board of Directors intends to spend $450,000 on upgrading and furnishing the breast imaging center at Estes Park Health. That money could be spent on staff training, paying the technicians more, staying open late or on weekends, or by providing free mammograms to women with no insurance.
But, no, the Board has chosen to provide better chairs, nicer carpet, more attractive cabinetry, and, perhaps, an electronic lock on the door.
The Park Hospital District Board of Directors and the Estes Park Health administration have, for years, spent money on the accouterments of healthcare rather than healthcare itself.
We have “state of the art” equipment, but we have to wait for a technician to drive up from Fort Collins to operate it because it is not used all that often. Comparable equipment is in use regularly by full-time staff at hospitals and clinics in Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, and Fort Collins.
Residents of Estes Park are coming to realize that it is not high-tech equipment or luxurious accommodations that make for quality healthcare; it is qualified people who find their work fulfilling and their work environment supportive. The Park Hospital District Board has not yet recognized this fact.
UCHealth apparently has recognized it. Their mission statement says, in part, that their priority is “building a team of exceptional people, from our clinical staff to our expert physicians, who consistently do what is right for the individuals we are honored to serve.”
That sounds like the kind of healthcare we need in Estes Park.
Dr. Rustin’s concerns are entirely valid. This is yet another instance of the EPH board falling short of its responsibilities. Their priorities are consistently misplaced, and it is the community that bears the consequences. As mentioned by others, they claim to lack the funds to keep hospice services running or conduct an employee satisfaction survey, yet they are leveraging the Foundation to raise money for a project that seems ill-conceived in the midst of a merger. With Kevin no longer at the foundation to ask critical questions, accountability is lacking. I urge donors to carefully consider whether their healthcare contributions are being used effectively. Supporting the Estes Park Salud Foundation might prove to be a more meaningful investment. Change is urgently needed. With Special District Elections on the horizon, as reported by the Estes Valley Voice today, I hope the community elects two new board members who can help steer EPH back toward rational decision-making.
Electing new EPH board members is an opportunity to bring common sense back to our community. Estes Park attracts big fish who see our small town as a chance to showcase their power among what they perceive as “small minds,” all to boost their own egos. Drew should be ousted for his belligerent bulking! Each time we welcome another overzealous retiree, we lose a piece of our hospital services and waste massive amounts of our tax dollars. When we stand up against this, they attempt to demoralize our hardworking citizens. Our two local papers capitalize on advertising dollars and forgo letters to the editors when these rifts start. I refuse to glance at those rags anymore—they are not community-driven.
To the Estes Park community, I urge you not to re-elect any current board members. We should never support career board members. Instead, we need real people who use our services and have deep roots in the community—individuals with a genuine vested interest in our well-being. We need a diverse group, unlike the current board, which seems focused on spending money than on discussing practical solutions.
These individuals often arrive with impressive resumes and quickly gain votes. However, they end up belittling our long-time, dedicated community members as they spend our money to create a new image, all while believing they are a much-needed gift to us.
IF EPH has any jurisdiction over the Guild Foundation, then they should do some investigating into the theft and hateful management there. Why is someone getting paid big bucks to manage the Guild when this should be run strictly by volunteers?