The only other substandard care I have experienced since I've had two strokes was at El Camino Hospital during this man's tenure.

1) the resident physician assigned to my case said I DIDN'T have a second stroke! Later on, when I had a thorough workup done at Stanford, the evidence of a second stroke was plain to see. This was the work of a TEAM of neurologists specializing in stroke issues.

2 ) The only C-Diff infection I have ever had occurred at El Camino Hospital...That was tough to deal with and I had to fight it for weeks. C-Diff WAS a problem at El Camino because the hospital had not been kept clean & sanitary...

The last problem was interesting...I was scheduled for an IV push of Phenergan..then not ten minutes later, I got an IV push of Dilaudid when the medicines should have been administered spaced apart by several hours...If I'd had gone into respiratory shock, I'd have died happy.

Patient care suffered big time. It took Stanford specialists to finally get a correct and proper examination and a treatment regimen.

It makes you wonder; how many other people have had improper care at El Camino Hospital?

The "Punnisher" comments that they have had bad experiences at El Camino Hospital. I have had excellent care and so have the people I know who have gone there. I know people who have had horrible experiences at Stanford. This is the way it goes. Everyone has their stories, but what does that have to do with the firing of the CEO? Good and bad happen at all hospitals and they are more about certain cases and people than the whole institution. The real issue is why is the board firing Graham and did he bring it on through poor management or is it a personality conflict with the board members. The board needs to answer to the public, become more open in their decisions, and allow Ken Graham to speak to the issue for everyone's good.
We need to beware of what we ask for as firing the current CEO could mean hiring someone worse and the board just might be the real problem. More information needs to get to the public and we can form an opinion and then put the pressure on when and where we have to in order to make changes for the better.
We have a new, high tech, excellent hospital that will serve us well if we let it and should take interest in not letting the people in charge mess it up.

The last statement in the article gives me pause "The chairman is confident that the ideal candidate won't be too difficult to come by, noting the hospital's reputation as a leader in technologically advanced medicine and the desirable living in the surrounding community." I, for one, don't want every Tom, Dick or Harriet applying for the CEO position based on what he/she will get out of it. Advice to any candidates: Ask not what your hospital can do for you, but what you can do for your hospital. I agree with another poster, ..."firing the current CEO could mean hiring someone worse[if indeed Mr. Graham was "bad"] and the board just might be the real problem."

" We have a new, high tech, excellent hospital that will serve us well if we let it and should take interest in not letting the people in charge mess it up. "

And just maybe that is why this person got the boot.

Cutting back on the hidden services ( like cleaning and sanitation ) may have started the C-Diff problem in the first place.

I suspect that some of the people in M.V. are making these comments because they need to keep their jobs...

I have no such bias. I'm just a former resident ( I remember the Dog City fiasco ) and a former patient...who almost became an EX-PATIENT..

Looking at the problems in M.V. from the outside gives you a " View " that is quite different from the inside.

I would guess " The View " should do the same....

'The contract also includes a "non-disparagement" clause, which says the hospital and Graham cannot make any statements about each other that could cause "any embarrassment or humiliation or otherwise reflect negatively on the other party(ies)."'

There are in-house agreements which state that staff, physicians and volunteers cannot speak disparagingly of the organization to the public either. Anyone speaking about the hospital in anything but the the highest of accolades can be terminated on the spot.

We will probably never get the real story.

It is my opinion that "The Punisher" has had a terrible experience with ECH and that it is something that does happen, but it certainly is not the norm. All hospitals have a constant fight on their hands to combat infections as this is one of the biggest threats to patient health. It is not always possible to know exactly how a person gets an infection, but it could come from an outside source that the hospital could not know about or control. ECH has an active program to insure a safe patient environment as I would think all hospitals do. It doesn't do anyone good to have bad patient experiences and yet there will always be someone that will contribute to the problem. How many outsiders do you think come to a hospital and don't even think of the standards the employees use and certainly don't practice good personal habits? I have been so many places where I have seen people who really should wash their hands leave a restroom without doing it, much less doing a good job.
I also remember being told by people, when ECH was new, that they would not go there, but times change and the hospital has earned a reputation as a place that will take good care of us. It is a place with cutting edge technology, excellent specialized programs, a good working exchange with Stanford and awards to show how it has become a desirable place for patients and also to work.
Bashing the hospital and its employees won't fix the issues, but support and insistance that the board and officers in charge speak to the public clearly and honestly will. The people "in the trenches" are working hard, getting less, suffering the same economic times as all of us and need our help to keep this valuable resource the place we need and prefer.
I for one would like to see more in depth explanations as to how the hospital is being run as well as a review of the credentials and backgrounds of those in charge. So many times, in our businesses today, we have seen personal agendas by the people running them that are not good for the business, but are only about their personal gain and we need to make sure that OUR hospital is run by people who want to serve us with only the best intentions.
These are the stories that our local media should dig deep in to and bring honest unbiased information that gives us the information we can use to keep our selves informed and then we can each decide what we want to do.