Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[btimbit]

That's to be expected when most Government policies, left or right, seem to be designed to rally support rather than fix an issue

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's to be expected when most Government policies, left or right, seem to be designed to rally support rather than fix an issue

Partially but it’s more human nature

US = good , them = Bad

There’s tons of studies that have shown the actual policy doesn’t matter , people decide good Vs bad solely based on the person (or policy) suggesting

I’m sure anyone who has worked with someone they dislike has experienced this . This first reaction to anything they propose is negative , where if it came from your work bestie it’s given a positive look

Whether this solves the problem or goes far enough I find it difficult to argue more nurses is a bad thing (although as a economic conservative I would like some administration level headcount’s to pay for these headcount )

When the province runs a surplus spending it on health care seems like a proposal everyone should support ?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While that's one way, another good method is to treat the existing staff well, so they don't abandon their careers in despair, and all the investments the province have made in them. An existing staff member is worth a lot more than a new one. One thing we have heard over and over since the UCP came in is they feel unsuported and attacked by this government. Giving existing staff some confidence in government plans would go a long way to maintaining them.

But these aren't just Alberta issues. I would understand if other jurisdictions were fully staffed and having no issues, but that's just not the situation. The harsh reality is that the pandemic and associated pressures made healthcare work terrible, and it's hard to get enough staff. People retired, people quit and moved or went to other fields. It's not all at the feet of the current provincial government as we see the same problems in BC, Ontario and most if not all of North America.

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's one of those things where just saying it sounds decent, sure, but that's not nearly enough. Where are they going to get them, and what are they doing to stop all the healthcare workers that we do have from leaving because it's a terrible place to work? Biggest thing for me is why focus on hiring people to solve one small symptom of healthcare rather than just hire more staff in general

Hiring 115 nurses to babysit waiting rooms doesn't really get you far if 150 nurses in other units are quit and move to Ontario anyway, and getting medics back on the road faster only gets you so far if they're just quitting and committing suicide

It's not just one small symptom though. Paramedics pick people up, bring them to the hospital and then wait with them. In the meantime, more calls come in and there are no more paramedics to send out. So...sensibly, the plan is to have someone to hand these patients off to so that paramedics can get back out and take calls.

Will they have enough staff fast enough? No idea. Where will they get them? Not sure. But it doesn't seem like a crazy idea to try to remove a pretty obvious pain point?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While that's one way, another good method is to treat the existing staff well, so they don't abandon their careers in despair, and all the investments the province have made in them. An existing staff member is worth a lot more than a new one. One thing we have heard over and over since the UCP came in is they feel unsuported and attacked by this government. Giving existing staff some confidence in government plans would go a long way to maintaining them.

For sure. But it would seem like adding new positions/funding would be a pretty good way for the government to support health care workers?

I think the other biggest issue over the last few years was that health care workers wanted more covid restrictions than the UCP. I suspect that complaint is largely rolling off at this point?

Anyway, like I said D Smith is an imbecile and I will never vote for her. But money for more nursing positions seems like something that is broadly a good idea, and I'd expect the NDP to be advocating for that as well...

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I think our provincial government could be better run if we elected a large language model that trained only on the sayings of Homer Simpson, but hiring more nurses seems like a good thing to do to me. It seems like the only way to solve overwork of the existing staff would be to hire more?

Obviously easier said than done, but given all the stupid stuff they do that seems like an odd thing to pick at to me.

Yes hiring more nurses is a good thing but since they are leaving in record numbers as it is, where are the new ones coming from to fill these new positions much less the ones that opened up from others leaving their positions?
Also they want quicker turn around on EMS to attend to people, that is good, except that hospitals are already running at capacity or over capacity so now they want EMS to bring them in faster. It just seems like it is policies to say "look we are doing stuff!!" without thinking about the next steps.
Since there are no beds for the people in the hospitals right now and barely staff to attend to them, maybe look at that first before telling EMS workers to work faster and harder.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

Yes hiring more nurses is a good thing but since they are leaving in record numbers as it is, where are the new ones coming from to fill these new positions much less the ones that opened up from others leaving their positions?
Also they want quicker turn around on EMS to attend to people, that is good, except that hospitals are already running at capacity or over capacity so now they want EMS to bring them in faster. It just seems like it is policies to say "look we are doing stuff!!" without thinking about the next steps.
Since there are no beds for the people in the hospitals right now and barely staff to attend to them, maybe look at that first before telling EMS workers to work faster and harder.

Right, from what I've heard and experienced, fixing the EMS problem starts by fixing the lack of beds(which are staffing issues) that prevent patients moving from the ER to a bed, freeing up an ER space for the EMS to pass patients to.

The reality is these are problems that have been around for well over a decade, and the UCP(and Cons before them) did nothing to address them. Why should anyone trust them now?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

But these aren't just Alberta issues. I would understand if other jurisdictions were fully staffed and having no issues, but that's just not the situation. The harsh reality is that the pandemic and associated pressures made healthcare work terrible, and it's hard to get enough staff. People retired, people quit and moved or went to other fields. It's not all at the feet of the current provincial government as we see the same problems in BC, Ontario and most if not all of North America.


It's not just one small symptom though. Paramedics pick people up, bring them to the hospital and then wait with them. In the meantime, more calls come in and there are no more paramedics to send out. So...sensibly, the plan is to have someone to hand these patients off to so that paramedics can get back out and take calls.

Will they have enough staff fast enough? No idea. Where will they get them? Not sure. But it doesn't seem like a crazy idea to try to remove a pretty obvious pain point?

The UCP was actively hostile to HCW during the pandemic, from what I remember it was far worse than any other province. That didn't help. But we've also had decades to set ourselves up for success, and done none of it. We have a huge advantage over other provicnes with resource revenue, but we've squandered that to be just as bad as everyone else? Great.

So why would any thinking rational person expect that this time will be different, with announcements coming out just before an election? I'd call those voters foolish, but I think that is being far too kind.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not just one small symptom though. Paramedics pick people up, bring them to the hospital and then wait with them. In the meantime, more calls come in and there are no more paramedics to send out. So...sensibly, the plan is to have someone to hand these patients off to so that paramedics can get back out and take calls.

Will they have enough staff fast enough? No idea. Where will they get them? Not sure. But it doesn't seem like a crazy idea to try to remove a pretty obvious pain point?

Here's my issue with it, the waiting room thing has been interesting to follow on social media the last two years because a lot of people have latched onto it while completely ignoring the reasons behind it. So to see the Government now also latch onto it is extremely frustrating because to me it's so obvious they're trying to look like they're doing something while doing the bare minimum. Meanwhile I get maybe one day a month to see my wife because of how overworked and stressed out she is, and last year four of her collogues that she personally knows have killed themselves.

It's absolutely just a symptom. It wouldn't be an issue if either the hospitals or paramedics could even properly fill a schedule. We need way more beds and nurses in general, why waste time specifically hiring them to babysit a waiting room when you can put them where they're needed most? It just comes across like the UCP is saying "This way those damn lazy paramedics will have to get back to work!" It's a middle finger to the actual people doing these jobs, and you can clearly see that by the reaction from the manager quoted in the original release.

I've said it 100 times before and I'll say it 100 times again, but solve the problem not the symptom.

[btimbit]

My biggest point is this, and I'll bold it not to be a dick but to simply emphasize how big of a deal I think it is

Just dumping more people in waiting rooms is not a solution, it's just moving the problem from one place to another

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Partially but it’s more human nature

US = good , them = Bad

There’s tons of studies that have shown the actual policy doesn’t matter , people decide good Vs bad solely based on the person (or policy) suggesting

I’m sure anyone who has worked with someone they dislike has experienced this . This first reaction to anything they propose is negative , where if it came from your work bestie it’s given a positive look

Whether this solves the problem or goes far enough I find it difficult to argue more nurses is a bad thing (although as a economic conservative I would like some administration level headcount’s to pay for these headcount )

When the province runs a surplus spending it on health care seems like a proposal everyone should support ?

I get what you're saying, and absolutely hiring more nurses is a good thing. But put them where they're needed the most, which isn't in waiting rooms

(Sorry for the triple post score, this is obviously a problem that hits close to home for me)

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by btimbit

My biggest point is this, and I'll bold it not to be a dick but to simply emphasize how big of a deal I think it is

Just dumping more people in waiting rooms is not a solution, it's just moving the problem from one place to another

Unless they are ditching stable patients. Like, if you've been triaged and are stable, let's get the EMS back out there, at least they can begin caring for the people who have been - as an example - mauled by some trashy person's ####ty dog.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Unless they are ditching stable patients. Like, if you've been triaged and are stable, let's get the EMS back out there, at least they can begin caring for the people who have been - as an example - mauled by some trashy person's ####ty dog.

The problem is also vastly blown out of proportion online, which is part of what I meant when I said seeing people latch onto this issue has been interesting. I was at the Foothills three times this morning and the most medics I saw at one time was two.

What people should understand is you aren't waiting for an ambulance because medics are waiting at the Hospital, you're waiting for an ambulance because there isn't enough of them

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Unless they are ditching stable patients. Like, if you've been triaged and are stable, let's get the EMS back out there, at least they can begin caring for the people who have been - as an example - mauled by some trashy person's ####ty dog.

“Getting EMS” back out there would be great if it was the only issue in our healthcare system.

[btimbit]

And I certainly don't mean to sound like 'well if you can't fix all of the problems then don't fix any of them' but it's simply infuriating to see this issue blown up when it's a total nothingburger compared to all the other things they could use those nurses on instead

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by btimbit

And I certainly don't mean to sound like 'well if you can't fix all of the problems then don't fix any of them' but it's simply infuriating to see this issue blown up when it's a total nothingburger compared to all the other things they could use those nurses on instead

I'd like to know if this was a political decision, or a solution proposed by AHS that has been planned for and was decided it is the best possible use of limited resources. I strongly suspect it is the former.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by btimbit

The problem is also vastly blown out of proportion online, which is part of what I meant when I said seeing people latch onto this issue has been interesting. I was at the Foothills three times this morning and the most medics I saw at one time was two.

What people should understand is you aren't waiting for an ambulance because medics are waiting at the Hospital, you're waiting for an ambulance because there isn't enough of them

This doesn't even make sense. We don't have enough ambulances, so it's fine if only a couple are waiting with a patient at one hospital? Never mind that there are five hospitals (if you include the Childrens) and potentially more places that patients are being taken, how does that make sense?

And yeah, there are other problems and other areas that are pain points. No one would say that there aren't! But the truth is, we hear on a pretty regular basis that we have "code red" where no ambulances are available.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by btimbit

And I certainly don't mean to sound like 'well if you can't fix all of the problems then don't fix any of them' but it's simply infuriating to see this issue blown up when it's a total nothingburger compared to all the other things they could use those nurses on instead

It’s extra dumb when you see this recurring argument whether you live in AB or Ontario. I’ve heard this cycle to the forefront countless times. It’s just a talking point, and doesn’t even pretend to offer any fix to the healthcare system.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd like to know if this was a political decision, or a solution proposed by AHS that has been planned for and was decided it is the best possible use of limited resources. I strongly suspect it is the former.

I'd also put money on the former

You want to stretch limited resources? Expand the inter hospital transfer service so it uses less Ambulances. Ditch the rule where units near the end of their shifts can't accept anything but the highest level calls so we don't have units driving from an hour away to deal with a ####ing nose bleed. Remove education barriers so more people can get into the profession. Educate the public more on what is and isn't an emergency. Vastly expand municipal medical services such as CFD's Medical Response Units to deal with more calls since we often arrive before EMS anyway.

But nah, let's just waste money on waiting room babysitters instead

[Sliver]

IDK, it seems obvious an EMS member would be serving the public interest better to be out in their ambulance helping people versus standing in a hallway holding somebody's hand if that person no longer needed a medical professional literally standing beside them.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, it seems obvious an EMS member would be serving the public interest better to be out in their ambulance helping people versus standing in a hallway holding somebody's hand if that person no longer needed a medical professional literally standing beside them.

I mean, I feel like there's a middle ground here by just asking two questions:

Does the patient continue to require acute medical assistance?
Is there a Doctor/Nurse available at the hospital to intake/care for them?

Yes/No, paramedic sticks around.
No/doesn't matter, paramedic hits the road.

What seems to be the problem though, is that we get stuck at Yes/No because we don't have the resources in the hospital to care for everyone in the hospital, nevermind intaking patients, so the paramedic gets stuck with the patient rather than on the road. Maybe No/No is a problem too but I don't know enough to say.