Goleta Valley Hospital Upgrade

I'm not a Cottage Hospital "hater'.

That said, I hope Cottage has learned from their mistakes in building the new wing in SB and applied the lessons to Goleta. Every nurse I know @Cottage SB says the new wing was designed poorly ("inefficient" is what I always hear).

Examples of what I've heard about the new SB wing ... nursing stations are far away from patient rooms, pharmacy wasn't near departments that had the most need (e.g. ICU), the infectious disease section was across from oncology where patients have compromised immune systems, very small break rooms for the nurses who often work 12 hour shifts, fancy rooms are laid out with lots of surfaces to disinfect, etc.

Interesting,
#1 The new SB hospital isn't just a new wing, it is only half of the entire construction project, existing wings still need to be demolished and new construction take place to complete the hospital.
#2 Each new patient unit has 2 or 3 nurses stations on the floor, making all rooms close to a station.
#3 The pharmacy was never located close to ICUs, that's why each unit has there own secure med storage. It is actually closer now.
#4 Oncology is still located in the existing building, far far away from an infectious disease floor in the new building.
#5 It's very hard to please some nurses with anything.

But good try, both new hospitals are and will be amazing. You can arrange a tour of the new SB building too, just call and ask.

@rcb87 ... in all honesty, I haven't visited the new wing. I realize oncology is still @6 central - they were referring to the planned new location. What I didn't mention was I was told some of the original design flaws were remedied (which ones I don't know). Sorry I didn't make that clear.

What's odd is one of the nurses was complaining just recently. I'll have to get more details.

Having been in the new section for two days in the last few weeks, I can tell you that it is nicely done, and a major improvement from the patients' point of view. But the nurses do complain - rightly or otherwise. They complain that it takes a long time to get certain equipment, as they are stored a long way from the patient wings. They complain that they were not consulted in the architectural layout (what should be close to what). Perhaps they just like to complain - perhaps we just got some chronic complainers, or perhaps their complaints have some substance. But the care you get is still excellent, IMHO.

I would think Cottage would know better than to plan to locate an infectious disease ward next to the oncology ward, but I may be giving them too much credit.

That just seems like common sense.

Now if only Cottage would raise this kind of money for content instead of buildings we would not have to go to UCLA for anything complicated. And sorry folks, that is the case.

Don't blame Cottage for the spending on the buildings, that was mandated by state seismic requirements.

Agreed Botany. But I am still waiting for the parallel campaign to raise money for content and to upgrade the standard of care. But then again, I have been waiting for a very long time.

Italiansurg, what do you mean by "complicated"? People from the tri-counties go to Cottage because it provides services their local hospitals can't... even still, compairing it to what you could find in LA is just silly. That's like saying you won't visit a single resturaunt in Santa Barbara until the dinning scene has the range of options LA does.

Did you have a bad experience at Cottage? Maybe I'm biased because I've never seen anything but good care there (for myself, family, friends, etc).

And if the state hadn't sprung this requirement - with no funding assistance - all hospitals in California could be spending that money on improving existing services (or staying open, as some hospitals can't meet the huge financial drain).