U-M health system doubling its bed capacity at Chelsea Community Hospital

It’s made possible through a master affiliation agreement signed in 2012 between UMHS and Trinity Health-Michigan, the parent organization of Chelsea Hospital since 2009.

Chelsea Community Hospital recently completed construction of this 130,000-square-foot addition. The University of Michigan Health System will be expanding its capacity for seeing patients at that facility.

Courtesy of Chelsea Community Hospital

More UMHS patients will be able to receive treatment at the Chelsea Hospital for basic medical conditions that would require an overnight stay at a hospital, officials said. It’s an alternative for patients on the western side of Washtenaw County instead of traveling to the congested main medical campus in Ann Arbor.

The University of Michigan’s Chelsea Family Medicine practice typically utilizes five to eight patient beds each day at the Chelsea Hospital, and treats more than 600 patients each year, said Robin Damschroder, associate hospital director of operations and clinical services.

The intent is to double UMHS’ presence to 10 to 16 patients daily, Damschroder said.

“We have enjoyed a long-standing relationship with U-M Health System, and are pleased to take it to this next level,” said Nancy Graebner, president and CEO of Chelsea Community Hospital, in a statement. “It’s a natural fit for us to collaborate with our U-M partners to ensure patients receive the most convenient, accessible care close to home.”

The shift to localizing patient care to reduce congestion on UMHS' main medical campus also is a motivating factor for UMHS' construction of a new 100,000-square-foot facility in Northville. Administrators anticipate 715 visits per day at the new building, which will be staffed by about 60 doctors.

In August, UMHS announced it was seeking an affiliation with the Midland-based MidMichigan Health to extend higher levels of UMHS treatment options to health care providers in outlying areas.

At Chelsea Hospital, UMHS has a team of eight family medicine doctors. More than 20 physicians at UMHS had patients that were admitted to Chelsea Hospital in 2012.

Chelsea Community Hospital recently completed a $40 million expansion that constructed a 130,000-square-foot building adjacent to its existing 127,000-square-foot facility.

However, the hospital had space for UMHS’s practice to expand its bed capacity prior to the expansion, Damschroder said. The additional beds that can be used for UMHS patients at the Chelsea Hospital do not require any kind of financial compensation, as it’s a part of a longstanding agreement between the two institutions, Damschroder said.

UMHS physicians have practiced in Chelsea Community Hospital since 1978. They see patients in a designated area of the hospital.

Upon arrival at Chelsea Community Hospital, UMHS patients should identify themselves as such to the staff to be directed to the UMHS Chelsea Family Medicine doctors.

Services offered for UMHS patients at Chelsea Hospital include emergency care and adult hospitalizations for medical conditions like chest pain, shortness of breath, pneumonia and other infections.

UMHS patients seeking obstetrician, gynecologic, advanced cardiac or intensive care unit services, as well as health care for children, will not be treated at the Chelsea Hospital.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Hook work by N4CSP

A contributor "SP" sends us a video along with the commentary

The grey car, N4CSP, is clearly in a hurry to get to the Callington Road Hospital, adjacent to the Tesco in Brislington. Unfortunately, I am about to cross the junction they wish to turn into, and so like any right-minded person who wants to exterminate another useless tax dodger, they wait until the last second to accelerate past then cut across to make the left turn.

This impressive action saved them a whole 4 seconds on their journey time, enabling them to no doubt secure a much deserved parking spot.


Interestingly, Callington Road Hospital is for people with mental health issues (no, not cyclists, proper weirdos), although I was unable to tell if the driver of N4 CSP was a member of staff in a hurry to beat up some of the patients, or a patient desperate to secure a fresh supply of Prozac.

Parking in and near hospitals are a controversial issue -the EP recently printed a lovely letter by Brian Rogers of Kingsdown , which we have covered, in which the way that fit and healthy cyclists get in the way of people trying to get to hospital:

These tax-payer funded lycra clad louts have spent the last 14 years "saving" the planet by not using cars as they abuse anyone who must use a car for such essential travel as work or hospital visits.

Well, "SP, you may have met Mr Rogers himself. At least this time he wasn't held up.  As for the claim that cyclists aren't "proper wierdos", we would dispute that. Grown men do not normally dress in plastic bags.

Southwell Street #1: I've seen your plan and it sucks

The tax-dodgers are complaining about Shared Streets this week -that they really mean "streets mostly for cars and vans". Exactly. Given a choice between a pedestrian area and a shared street, we'd go for the shared street. Once you get a hang of the chicanes they can be quite fun.

Southwell Street, our unofficial logo, is being "improved". We know that, as the vans to do it are parked there this week. Expect photos soon. But before that, the plans.

As people will recall, the concerns by the non-drivers about this area were

• uphill pavement turned into NHS parking, possibly illegally.
• no way for bicycles to get through except on the pavement
• the pavement was blocked to give priority to staff cars
• both dead ends were used as short stay parking for vans

Overall then a van-and-staff friendly area, with pedestrians as an afterthought, and one of those deliberately created bike/walker conflict zones to divide the opposition, all on the premier walking route from Gloucester Road to Bristol University, and hence full of students. By creating such conflict we could discourage people from trying to do this.

We were initially worried, then, when this draft plan hit our inbox, "a shared space".

Then we saw some emails from Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who we thought would approve of this fusion of walking and driving. Yet he seemed unimpressed

Most residents in Kingsdown feel, as I do, pretty insulted to be presented with a sketch of such pathetically poor quality for Southwell Street.

If the UHB really believes that Southwell Street and other streets in and around Kingsdown can be treated with such contempt, we should not give them any support. I have seen work experience students aged 16 produce more intelligent work than AECOM’s output for UHB. I only hope the hospital trust is not having to pay them fees as well....

Finally, we saw this video from a tax-dodging pavement cyclist who encounters the designers, and provides some feedback.

At 00:10 the Ginster delivery van does a U-turn without indicating, at which the troublemaker engages in discussion with the driver about, that and the fact that it isn't making any beeping noises. Well, the lorry pays more road tax, and isn't of a size where it needs the beeps. That shuts them. Remember that lorry though.

At 1:02 they execute the highly illegal "pavement bypass" option, so endangering pedestrians.

At 1:16 they meet the a hi-viz'd person planning the traffic calming area -and say to them the plan sucks, because painting a bit of pavement, whether it's in coloured paint or some cobbles down the middle of the road is utterly meaningless. They mutter on a bit, and we think their key point is that taking one pavement off for car parking and closing the other off for safe car park access is somehow wrong.

At 1:38 the cyclist, who is standing in the middle of the "person on the road" lane is actually forced to wheel their bike backwards to let a car out of the staff carpark. This shows to us how the "shared space" design will have no effect on our daily lives, so may as well be permitted. There is a risk of some benefit to people trying to cycle here -as they won't be quite so discouraged by having to hop on and off the pavement, but if we block the bollards with vans often enough, they'll be discouraged differently.

At 1:48 the troublemaker demands some of the pavement back. We'd hoped to have some good news there, but based on the building work it looks like these people have got their way. Somewhat. Wait until tomorrow for the specifics there.

At 2:02 they express concern that the dropoff area in front of the hospital is chaotic, and it will remain so. Well, that's why it's called a dropoff area, isn't it? If people were expected to do dropoffs and pickups on St Michael's hill, there'd be an area there instead.

at 2:20 their rant finishes and they finally head off, presumably to the relief of the site team. They then proceed down a road that clearly has room for parking all down one side, yet lacks it. And there are an oddly large number of pedestrians, given the effort the NHS has gone to here to discourage walking.

At 2:43 you can see some people trying to cross Horfield Road. Notice the wide five-junction crossing here. It's a dangerous exposed crossing and people shouldn't attempt it, not when there is a zebra crossing further up the road, as the video shows at 3:07. If people aren't prepared to cross the road where a crossing has been provided, well, it's like people on bicycles not using the bike lanes.

At the zebra crossing they do a U-turn, and at 3:08 show what is paveparked over yellow lines round the corner: Ginster delivery van HN58LVK. Purely because Southwell Street doesn't support through traffic, that van had to do a 180 degree turn in a narrow drop-off street, turn right up St Michael's Hill, right again on to Myrtle Road, then onto Alfred place. One U-turn and two right turns -not just a philosophy for the coalition government, it's costing the company money. The DfT puts a financial cost on critical business motoring, and its clear that closing this road has tangible costs to that key part of the economy: the white van.

Therefore, although the proposals don't take much away from us, they don't deliver what we need, either -the removal of the gate and the re-instatement of Southwell Street as a van-friendly rat-run!

The "improved" Southwell Street Shared Space

There have -apparently- been complaints about this shared space. We don't know who, we don't see anything wrong with it except sometimes people get in the way of where we want to drive or park.

Whoever is complaining clearly must be walking or cycling, so not contributing to the national economy,

Yet they want things "improved". What improvements will help us? None.

Southwell street represents all that is inner Bristol. A road on a hill, old houses, the pavements turned into parking and barrier in the way to discourage people from walking and cycling. To attempt to change this is not just an attack on the hospital, it is attack on modern British society!