Helgelandssykehuset, Operating robot | Does the managing director of Helgeland’s hospital, Lena Nielsen, have what it takes to lead the health institution further?

The reason I ask is quite simply the carelessness she shows, especially now in connection with the generous gifts Helgeland Hospital Action and Alstahaug municipality want to give for the purchase of operating robots, both at HSYK Mo i Rana and HSYK Sandnessjøen.

When I read the document with the setting for the board meeting of HSYK, on ​​Monday 13 May, I react primarily to the focus she has on her reputation and not on what she is set up to do, to put the patients and their safety first. Among the points she highlights, most have already been answered, both in HSYK but also in a similar case where the purchase of an operating robot for UNN Harstad was just approved. It seems that the CEO is more concerned with finding cons than benefitsin contrast to his colleague at UNN.

The managing director is absolutely right that it may seem unfortunate in terms of reputation to turn down a gift that gives Helgelandssykehuset the opportunity to adopt modern, forward-looking technology that will raise the quality of patient care and be attractive to the recruitment of health personnel, but then it goes my opinion off the ground with the argument. She believes that accepting gifts with conditions can have a negative effect on the reputation, which the vast majority of hospitals throughout the country have done, recently UNN Tromsø has received a gift in the hundreds of millions from the private individual Trond Mohn. If the county’s university hospital can accept gifts, then of course HSYK can too. The managing director’s concern that those around him can interpret it as meaning that the company’s strategies and priorities are influenced by actors from the outside is clearly great, but again, one only has to point to UNN Tromsø and Harstad. This can weaken trust in the healthcare company, claims the managing director, but she pays little attention to the benefits for the patients, which are well described in the board documents in the same case at UNN.

The director at UNN writes, among other things:

The director believes that the generous gift commitment is of great importance for the professional development at UNN and at UNN Harstad. It is also the director’s assessment that the gift can be received within the framework of the applicable group regulations.

The benefits of introducing robotic surgery at UNN Harstad will be more effective treatment, better results, reduction of complicationsas well as opportunity to return more quickly to work and family. Within certain patient categories, the use of an operating robot will lead to a transition from open surgery to peephole surgery. Most important, however, is the patient’s experience of clearly less pain and morbidity after robotic surgery, which in turn increases the department’s capacity (fewer days in bed per patient). Similar experience can be found after switching to robotic surgery in gynecological cancer operations.

For UNN as a whole, the gift means potential for improved flexibility. Training of surgeons in robotic surgery is simplified. Flexibility within some of the company’s package processes is strengthened so that target achievement in relation to deadlines increases. Patients with benign disorders waiting for robotic surgery, and using capacity at UNN Tromsø. Can be operated on in Harstad, and capacity will be freed up for cancer surgery in Tromsø.

Robot-assisted surgery will be able, (and this can be directly transferred to HSYK as an argument):

• reduce postoperative morbidity (and will be a significant advance for the patients in our region):
• increase quality on existing minimally invasive surgery.
• keep or resume interventions that are not currently done at our hospital as robotic surgery is preferred.
• shorter stay times.
• reduced care burden.
• reduce waiting lists.
• contribute to the local hospital getting take part in the technological development and can assume processing responsibility and develop competence as ensures the hospital’s future existence.
• shorten surgical learning curves – which in turn contributes to increased quality and faster training of new surgeons.
• offer modern treatment options as will strengthen recruitment by specialist doctors in surgery.

Strengthen the surgical flexibility in UNN HF/ (HSYK), in that the robotic surgery can be performed at several locations.

It is also further noted: Modern equipment and treatment will in the future have great importance for how attractive a hospital is as a workplace. For future surgeons, the opportunity to do robotic surgery will be one for many prerequisite for employment. Absence of procurement will therefore have a clear negative meaning for the future recruitment of competent surgeons. Stabilization of the existing medical staff is ensured.

Financially, UNN has calculated that increased operational capacity will yield a net income (minus increased consumption costs OPIN) of just over NOK 4.4 million.

If the managing director is to have the slightest credibility, both for the patients but also for his employees, then there is only an outcome where the managing director clearly recommends and the board says YES to receiving gifts for the purchase of operating robots at HSYK Mo i Rana and HSYK Sandnessjøen.