mayor
Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison. (Doppler file photo).

A hospital in Port Sydney identified as problematic: Aitchison

The Capital Plan Development Task Force is expected to make a recommendation on a future hospital model to the hospital board sometime by the end of July, according to Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison.

Aitchison, who sits on the task force, provided the timeline at Huntsville Council’s May 28 meeting, following a query from Councillor Bob Stone.

Aitchison told Stone that a meeting had taken place that morning, where the task force reviewed a planning report that had been done on various different sites identified as potential locations for a hospital.

“Suffice to say the Huntsville hospital site is deemed to be very low-risk in terms of any potential planning issues. They could’ve saved thousands of dollars, I told them that from day one,” said the Mayor. He said the same is not the case with the existing location for the Bracebridge hospital.

“They identified a couple of other locations, one of which is a piece of property that the Town of Bracebride has actually purchased an option on, which they have said they would make available… and they say that the planning issues with that are fairly low, as well.”

He said other properties outside of the Bracebridge area were examined as well, including one in the area of Hwy. 117 and Hwy. 11 “and they identified all those as non-starters because they’re outside of the urban area. They also identified Port Sydney as a bit of a non-starter because it’s a community settlement area and it doesn’t make sense in terms of planning matters,” added Aitchison.

“Effectively, what they found was all the things that [Bracebridge] Mayor Smith and I told them two years ago when we said ‘this doesn’t make sense because of planning reasons.’ Anyhow, that was our review today. We’re on the same page now, which is really great,” he added.

“My suspicion is that a recommendation will be made to the board by the end of July and then they will deal with that and let us know whenever they get to it, I guess,” said the Mayor, who described the review as a painful but thorough process.

The task force continues to review all hospital models. So far, the following three options have been identified:

Two Acute Sites: The Two Acute Sites model proposes to maintain acute care beds and Emergency Depts., general surgery, obstetrics and intensive care in two sites. These would be supported by other core diagnostic services and allied health and support services in both sites. Specialty surgeries and programs like Chemotherapy and Complex Continuing Care that are currently single sited are proposed to continue to be in one site only. The future model also proposes to add a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities at one site.
Inpatient Site/Outpatient Site: The Outpatient/Inpatient model proposes to include Emergency Depts. at two sites and to separate outpatient and inpatient services between two sites. The Outpatient site would include services that do not require an overnight stay in hospital like endoscopies, x-rays and other diagnostic imaging, and services like chemotherapy and dialysis. The Inpatient site would include all hospital beds, surgical services, obstetrics, and intensive care, and would be supported by other core diagnostic services and allied health and support services in both sites. The Inpatient site also proposes the addition of a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities.
One Site: The One Site model proposes to provide all programs and services on a single site, including the addition of a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities.

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.

 

 

Join the discussion:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. Please ensure you include both your first and last name and abide by our community guidelines. Submissions that do not include the commenter's full name or that do not abide by our community guidelines will not be published.

6 Comments

  1. Bill Beatty says:

    Hospital in Port Sydney. Hah…..People in The Village are Happy and Healthy and Wise….2\two sites improved and maintained…. Hopefully a new Gov’t will figure out the needed​ funding formula !

  2. Rob Millman says:

    With respect, Mr. Mayor, I do not feel that it is ethical to reveal the private discussions from a recent meeting; or any meeting, for that matter. I have been on several federal and provincial boards/committees/task forces; as well as regional and local boards/committees. One of the caveats which was implicitly and explicitly understood from Day One was confidentiality. With your perceived candor, you may have taken a huge burden off our minds for the next few minds. If, however, that is not the ultimate solution, you have only served to discredit the entire Task Force.

  3. Kathy Henderson says:

    I think the two sites has to be the only option. With Muskoka being so big and covering such a large area this is the only option. Shouldn’t be a problem with all the funding promised by the Liberals PC NDP parties. ?

  4. Bob Slater says:

    Gang! It’s time for change .. same old .. same old .. does not cut it in 2018! The area needs the latest and greatest services, procedures, technology, etc etc! The 2 hospital solution does nothing now or in the future! All of us must get over the emotional side of this decision and let the facts speak for themselves! If WE stick with the 2 very old hospital proposal .. it still remains 2 very old hospitals with the same problems .. no funding, no expansion, same old … same old services etc etc! The new hospital solution will attract the best hospital service staff, we attract new business and investment .. when they know and see the hospital services are the best and latest .. and .. that will equate to JOBS for the entire area, expansion for the area etc etc .. ALL the good things that are needed for the area .. not the selfish attitude and behaviour of the current political … local regimes! The decision will not be based on local government regime votes but what is good and best … for “EVERYONE” … NOW … and … for the FUTURE … 2018 and beyond!

  5. Erin Jones says:

    We all knew that they weren’t really serious about the “Port Sydney compromise”. Why did they put that red herring in front of our faces? Running water and sewer lines to Port Sydney would be prohibitively expensive, considering all of the near-the-surface bedrock in the area–and you can’t have a hospital without water and sewer services. Period. End of discussion.

    Two acute-care sites is the only alternative that makes sense. We’ve been doing it for all of these years–and it has been shown that it need not be more expensive than one site. It would be a significantly backward step to accept a one-hospital “solution.” There are a significant number of accidents at both Arrowhead Park and Algonquin Park (north of Huntsville) every summer–they need good access to emergency services. The same is true of the lakes in the proximity of Bracebridge. Has anyone thought about that? Why doesn’t the funding formula take the huge expansion of our late spring / summer / early fall population fully into account? Tourists now are NOT just here for July and August.

  6. Robert Vtech says:

    And the winner is???
    The people of Muskoka???????
    I’ll believe when I see it!