Final Comprehensive Workshop Summary

Workshop Summaries
prepared by:
Victoria Jean-Louis
Melanie Y. Brierre
R&R Office ICC
STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR GCH RECONSTRUCTION
”NOUVEAU GCH”: MARCH 22 & 23

(NATIONAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVES)
Facilitator: Dr. Harry Geffrard
”RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING”: MARCH 26-27

(NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVES)
Facilitator: Dr. John Yates
Introduction:
R&R Office ICC Delmas 31 Port-au-Prince • telephone: 305 909 6774 • www.internationalchildcare.org
STRATEGIC PLANNING OF GCH RECONSTRUCTION AND RELIEF EFFORTS
The effects of the Earthquake of January 12th 2010 have been astounding; over 14 billion dollars in
damages, more than 220,000 deaths, more than 500,000 displaced persons and more than 1 mil-
lion left homeless. Grace Children’s Hospital was not spared in this tragedy. The buildings which
housed the hospital’s inpatient wards, outpatient clinics, laboratory and administration have all been
severely damaged. According to the recommendations of more than three professional engineering
firms, these structures must be demolished and reconstructed. In the meantime, hospital services
are being offered under tents in the yard.
By the 25th of January the International Board had appointed an International Director to, on one
hand, coordinate the preparation of a strategic plan for the “New GCH”, and on the other, help
mobilize funds to construct and equip the new hospital. Meanwhile, the ICC-USA Board had orga-
nized a “Capital Campaign” committee. What was lacking was a document outlining a clear vision
for the “New GCH” and its approximate cost projections. Over the course of the third week of
March, the Relief and Reconstruction team working out of its new office, began working to develop
a plan and quote for the construction of the new infrastructure.
Two groups were formed to facilitate the planning process: Group 1 consisting of the leadership
team of ICC-Haiti, along with representatives belonging to different levels of the hospital’s admini-
stration and technical/ clinical service departments. Group 2 consisted of the leadership team of
ICC-Haiti and three members of the ICC-USA team.
Two Strategic Planning Workshops were held the week of the 22nd of March to initiate the strate-
gic planning of the reconstruction of the new GCH. This document summarizes the discus-
sions/outcomes of these workshops.
Hospital inpatient care set up under tents in the yard
R&R Office ICC Strategic Planning of GCH Reconstruction and Relief Efforts
2
WORKSHOP 1: “NOUVEAU GCH”

Background: GCH infrastructure was severely damaged as a result of the earthquake. Services were
disrupted or suspended altogether. Strategic planning for reconstruction is required.
Objective: The purpose of the workshop was to obtain input from local GCH staff in the devel-
opment of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Grace Children’s Hospital. Each level of per-
sonnel was represented by a member of their division.
Summary of Results: Through a two day series of discussions, the workshop achieved many of its
desired outcomes. (See Annex A for a full summary of this workshop)These discussions led to the
definition of an agreed upon collective vision for the new GCH. Six primary strategic axes were
identified as necessary steps to achieve this vision and the major components/clinical services for
the new hospital were identified and a suggested layout for the new GCH was initiated.
The historical review of the past 42 years of GCH’s existence led to the identification and analysis
of key values and strengths that have contributed to the success and reputable service that ICC is
known for. The success of this model underlined our discussions for the future hospital and its op-
erations. In addition, by detailing the weaknesses recognized throughout, the group was able to
devise ways to counter them and their adverse effects. The overall institutional culture of GCH
provided a foundation for the discussions and supported an open platform where voices and sen-
timents could be expressed freely. This atmosphere and context resulted in Group 1 arriving at a
collective vision for the new GCH. They summarized what are seen to be GCH’s current
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) and they defined the key strategic
axes that must be included in our plan in order for us to achieve this vision. These items are de-
tailed below.
GROUP VISION FOR THE NEW GCH:
“GCH is a maternity and pediatrics hospital specialized in the research and management of HIV/
AIDS and respiratory diseases, notably Tuberculosis. Its outpatient clinics, open to the public, re-
spond to the medical needs of the population in its district.”
SIX STRATEGIC AXES:
Participants found the following six strategic axes to be of greatest importance moving forward. It is
believed that efforts to satisfy priorities and objectives in these five areas will ensure the accom-
plishment of ‘the dream’.
1. Reconstruction of Hospital
2. Equipment and Maintenance
3. Continuing Education
4. Human Resource Management
5. Fundraising
6. Partnerships with international and local training institutions
3
DESIGN/ LAYOUT FOR THE NEW GCH:
It was felt that the new hospital should include the following clinical services/spaces:
Out Patient Clinic

• Reception
• Waiting Room
• Patient Accounts
• Consultation Room
o Ophthalmology
o Pediatrics
o TB Clinic
o OBGYN Clinic
 Pre Natal
 Midwifery
 Family Planning
o ARV/VCT Clinic
o Counseling
o Dermatology Clinic
o ENT Clinic
o Family Planning
o Triage
Inpatient (100 beds)

• Neonatal
• Intensive Care
• Emergency Room
• TB
• Postpartum/Psychology
• Pediatrics
• Maternity
o Waiting Room
o Reception
o Delivery Room
o Operation Room
o Labor Room
o Recovery Room
o Gynecology Room
o Postpartum/Psychology Unit
Community Health Center

• Training Room (designated for TBAs: traditional birth attendants)
• TBA’s station (traditional birth attendants)
Offices/Work Stations
4
• Supervisor
• Health Agents
• Chief Community Health Officer
• Clinical Nurse Manager
• Training Supervisor
Laboratory and Radiology

Pharmacy
Medical Records
Administration
Conference Room
Research and Statistics Dept.
Laundry Room
Cafeteria
Kitchen
School
Residence (for students and people in training)
Sterilization Room
Mediation Center
Gift Shop
Information Technology Department
FOLLOW UP ACTION;
Operations Plan to be drawn up by National Staff by April 15th.
Mme Arnaud, Ellen Palmer and Jeannine Hatt express their sympathies to the oldest member of
the GCH staff who was left homeless by the Earthquake.
5
WORKSHOP 2: “RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING”

Background: The 26-27 of March 2010 Group 2 met to discuss the outcomes of the first work-
shop held earlier that week and arrive at decisions concerning the vision statement and strategic
choices proposed by Group 1.
Objective: To combine the thoughts and concerns of Group 1 and Group 2 to contribute to a
broad framework to be used over the next five years for the reconstruction and operational plan
of the new Grace Children’s Hospital.
Summary of Results: An agreed upon vision for the “New GCH” along with a list of new struc-
tures was arrived at through use of a participatory process. It is believed that group participation of
this sort will ensure the building of a hospital we all feel proud of. A first draft of the strategic plan-
ning document is expected to be complete by the end of April.
On day one, participants reviewed points covered in Workshop 1 and provided insightful com-
mentary and recommendations. By way of introduction Dr. Geffrard made reference to three im-
portant steps in the strategic planning process: 1) Harnessing the necessary technical expertise (ie
engineers, architects, etc), 2) arriving at approximate cost projections and 3) planning for a sustain-
able future. With regards to the first, participants agreed that a local engineering firm should work
along side the selected foreign engineering firm, or at the very least provide technical advice in the
process of reconstruction. Tecina is a local firm which has participated in ground analysis construc-
tion with GCH in the past. (It was Tecina that oversaw the construction of the eye clinic building
across the street from the man campus) Given their familiarity with the terrain, it was decided that
their advice would be invaluable in the process of rebuilding. A meeting with Tecina representa-
tives has been scheduled and is set for Thursday April 8, 2010.
It was agreed that cost projections are a critical next step in the rebuilding process as the Capital
Campaign will require these to mount a successful fundraising effort. When it comes to fundraising,
it was also agreed that we will need cost estimates and then will need to raise funds not only for
the reconstruction but first for the demolition/site preparation, and then also for equip-
ment/furnishings and lastly at least a year of running/operating costs if we intend to plan for a sus-
tainable future. To this end, the Capital Campaign, apart from fundraising for reconstruction, will
have a separate endowment fund designated for hospital maintenance and operations post con-
struction.
As participants looked back over the past few decades of ICC work, Group 2 had a number of
important historical milestones/ observations to add to the list prepared by Group 1, most notably
the PEPFAR program, new HIV activities and establishment of the medical laboratory. Each is felt
to have contributed greatly to the evolution of GCH as an institution. The trend, historically, has
been a gradual expansion of services and as such, members warned against plans for rapid expan-
sion of services/ program activity. Historical funding sources became the next point of discussion.
Group members feel GCH has the credibility and longevity of funding sources to succeed in the
proposed endeavors and has requested that National Directors draw up a list of these sources to
give a better sense for where funding has come from in the past and who should be approached
for support as we move forward. As we prepare to do fundraising we also need to gather sum-
mary data about the total numbers served by the hospital through its various services over time.
6
A number of clarifications were required as Group 2 reviewed the list of institutional values pre-
pared by Group 1. More specifically, Group 2 wanted to know whether the values included on the
list were values being upheld by GCH as an institution or if they were the values we should aspire
towards more generally. Group 1 confirmed the latter and in fact mentioned that commitment to
certain values is on the decline. Members of both teams felt the exercise was important to rein-
force the values listed. This discussion led into questions about GCH’s current mission statement. It
was confirmed that GCH does not have a mission statement endorsed officially by the organiza-
tion. Participants agreed to develop one to present to board members at the Annual Board Meet-
ings at the end of April.
The following are the additions/ modifications set out by Group 2:
Institutional Strengths
1. PIMUD (Urban TB Initiative)

2. TB/ AIDS Expertise
3. Community Health
Institutional Weaknesses
1. Maternity Care
2. Cost Recovery
External Threats
1. Increase in cost of living

2. Hand-out mentality that seems to be developing post quake
3. Conflicting Agendas on the part of donors
4. Distortion of local market as a result of the post quake influx of International Aid
External Opportunities
1. Collaborations with other NGO’s

2. New services
3. Equipment and maintenance
4. Possibility of offering a residency training in Pediatrics
Additional Support Groups
1. UMCOR
2. List of institutional/ denominational supporters( to be added with help from national of-
fices in the North)
Concerned Parties
1. Local volunteers (ie 46,000 American citizens living in Haiti)

7
By the end of the day, the Vision statement had been reformulated and reads as follows:
“GCH is a maternity and pediatrics hospital focused on education and training and spe-
cialized in research and the management of HIV/AIDS and respiratory diseases, notably
Tuberculosis. Its outpatient clinics, open to the public, respond to the medical needs of
the population in its district.”
Day two of the workshop was dedicated to exploring the other perspectives and identifying next
steps required to ensure the success of the Capital Campaign. As a representative of the Capital
Campaign Committee Dr. Jeannine Hatt presented her thoughts on the increasing interest in inter-
national health. She outlined the many ways GCH might take advantage of this rising interest to
make key partnerships that will benefit its functions and ICC as a whole.
The three categories of partnerships identified were academic, non-academic medical (ie Haitian
Pediatric Association and other health facilities in Haiti etc), and service ( ie volunteers- medical
and non-medical). Group members felt academic partnerships should be the focus. Such partner-
ships are thought to be mutually beneficial as they provide possible relief to programs in the North,
and open doors for new resources (money/ equipment) and research opportunities for partners in
the South. Local team confirmed that these types of partnerships are not new to GCH; they have
existed in the past (ie student exchange partnerships with the University of Massachusetts).
In reference to non-academic medical partnerships, according to GCH staff, partnerships with

other local health institutions have often proven to be problematic due the competition that exists
in the context of Haiti. For this reason group members decided that GCH should be selective
about the types of partnerships they engage in due to competition for limited resources.
Service partnerships were discussed favorably; however concern was raised as the current context
makes it difficult to accommodate groups of volunteers. Lodging and transportation for example
were some of the issues discussed. Group members also feel it is critical that the academic, service
and training needs at GCH be defined by local staff and that each group coming from the North
meet one of these specific needs. It is agreed that follow up is key in maintaining partnerships.
Action Plan:
There was consensus that expanding and strengthening partnerships would be beneficial for
GCH moving forward. It was felth that while strengthening academic partnerships as well as
partnerships with other health care facilities was important, precedence should be given to
strengthening partnerships with existing or potential support groups including OMS, UNI-
CEF, UMCOR. Key action items were identified to create a strategy to develop, nurture
and manage these partnerships and their many benefits for GCH. It was decided that it is
best and less complicated to focus on one or two academic institutions to partner with
8
rather than attempt to manage several institutional partnerships simultaneously. Specific ac-
tion points to achieve these goals are detailed below.
• Generate a list of list of 10 potential institutional partners

o Some suggested partners:
 Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (senior member is Haitian)
 Global Health Program (Dr. Gwen Worm)
 University of Miami
 American Academy of Pediatrics
• Complete application so that we are eligible as a VIM site to receive volunteers
• R&R Office is to communicate needs identified by GCH to ICC USA, ICC Canada
offices and other entities receiving volunteer requests
• R&R Office in collaboration with GCH is to develop a public relations strategy to
accommodate and follow up with volunteer groups and other partners
• R&R Office to facilitate the development of a selection process to respond to over-
whelming response or desire to participate and volunteer with ICC in Haiti based
on needs of GCH and other established criteria
Dr. John Yates encouraged the group to consider some additional angles as we continue to move
forward with developing our vision for the new hospital. These included:
• Historical themes that have shaped our past

• SWOTs including both an internal and external scan in the post earthquake context
He notes that throughout GCH’s history a tension has always existed between preventative and
curative care; between institutional care and community based care. It was agreed that GCH must
continue to be a base for operating a strong community health outreach program; however it was
recognized that in the post quake context it is far easier to rally support and funding for a hospital
providing curative care to sick children over community based care programs.
In GCH’s history there has always been a strategic focus on the treatment of TB and HIV. This has
allowed GCH to gain a reputation for its expertise in TB and HIV and develop a special identity as
a respiratory hospital of excellence. This is a key point to consider in the planning for the recon-
struction of GCH. Group members feel expanding GCH’s reach/breadth of clinical services could
possibly be detrimental to GCH’s special identity. None the less the members considered other
disease processes that GCH could add to the focus that go along with HIV/AIDS and TB( ie Hepa-
titis).
Discussion/Questions Raised
Many of the themes and questions noted below were raised as points to consider in the planning
process. Some were discussed thoroughly and many more were noted as guiding notions to con-
9
sider and subjects for further discussion. The group was asked to determine if these questions are
relevant, what of these pieces of information are currently available to GCH and what needs to be
done to gather additional information to enrich/inform our planning effort.
• Nationalization vs a “blended team” of expatriates and Haitians

o Has ICC missed out on opportunities for working together as a result of na-
tionalization of GCH staff?
o Local staff responded that there had never been a policy adopted to ex-
clude foreigners from joining GCH staff. The situation in Haiti simply grew
less accommodating and appealing to foreigners
• Current and future health priorities in Haiti
o National Child Health Strategy
• Who are the major players in the delivery of child health services, who are they
working with, what are they doing?
• What are the gaps in health care of children, what roles does ICC have in reducing
these gaps?
• Human health resources in child health (training needs, resources etc)
• What training is going on? Who is being trained and who is doing the training, etc?
What are the training gaps and how can ICC help to fill this gap?
• Haitian Pediatric Association – what are their plans? What advice would they have
for GCH?
• Child health research in Haiti? Is it being done? Who is doing it? What are the re-
search priorities? What should be the research focus: malnutrition, What could we
contribute? (ie in the areas of childhood, malnutrition, pediatric TB and TB/HIV, etc)
Internal Scan:
It was noted that an internal scan is critical to the planning process. The following are to be evalu-
ated in the coming weeks:
• Current annual budget

• Current revenue sources
• Percentage/amount derived from patient fees
• Current staff profile/ H.R. costs
• Number of beds/ bed occupancy rate/ average length of stay
• Current clinical services/ average patients served per day/ number of staff
belonging to each
• SWOTs
• Infrastructure pre and post earthquake
Follow-up:
As follow up to discussions a list of concerns and specific questions were raised. Some discussion
was raised around the details surrounding the demolition process. A major question was how
quickly the current buildings can be demolished. In response, the national staff revealed that they
had already been given a quote for the costs of demolition and preparation of land by a local engi-
10
neering firm. There have also been a number of possible benevolent demolition offers that have
been made by groups such as BWB (Builders Without Borders), UMCOR, and HATCH.
While planning for the demolition of the old buildings, adequate transitional housing must also be
provided for patient care and administrative activities. It is critical to move forward in these deci-
sions as costs for temporary support for the damaged buildings are accumulating. Support beams
for the existing damaged building cost $6,000 HTD every three weeks. Suggestions to address this
problem included using the space available behind the Ophthalmology Clinic to set up temporary
housing structures during the rebuilding process. In order to move forward with this option,
measures will have to be taken to ensure patients and care services are relocated (including radiol-
ogy, laboratory and pharmacy services).
Following these discussions, the major areas and stages of reconstruction following this workshop
were laid out as follows
• Demolition/Land Preparation
• Transition Strategy
o Suggestion: start with a focus on outpatient care versus in patient care
• Lay out of design and space
• Will require input of the engineers
o Suggestion: Include the input of an architect with experience in earth-
quake prone areas (ie California) and who is familiar with anti-seismic
building codes
• Principles of design
o Suggestion: one story with the possibility of others in the future
• Reconstruction planning to facilitate the Capital Campaign
o Suggestion: submit completed comprehensive plan to Capital Campaign
Committee keeping in mind it may be necessary to build in stages
Action Plan:
The plan laid out identified the next steps in the planning for reconstruction.
• Partner with local engineering firm to gain important insight into the local
construction context (Tecina)
• Solicit the input of experts in the design of Children’s Hospitals
• Locate property deed
• Distribution of tasks
o It was decided that the R&R team along with GCH management will de-
termine who will be responsible for which aspects of the internal and
external scans mentioned above.
The discussions concluded with an exchange of ideas concerning lines of decision making as we
move forward. This should be discussed at the upcoming board meetings.
11
• Where does the final decision making power lie?
o Group agreed that decision making process would be far too cumber-
some if all four boards are required to sign off on decisions related to
reconstruction. It was suggested that perhaps each board designate one
or two people to act as spokespeople on a kind of reconstruction
committee
o In the absence of the Haitian board perhaps a member of the R&R

team along with one of GCH hospital administrators can serve as repre-
sentatives on the committee
o It was also suggested that a provisional advisory committee be selected

to represent the Haitian board on the reconstruction committee.
The day ended with a tour of the hospital grounds to permit workshop participants the chance to
visualize the available physical space for rebuilding. Participants were then invited to visit the new
R&R Office.
From Left to Right: Victoria Jean-Louis, Dr. Ray Aller, Dr. Jeannine Hatt, Mr. Hoverlow, Mme Jocylene Arnaud, Dr. Marie Excel-
lent, Dr. Harry Geffrard, Mrs. Ellen Palmer, Dr. Frédérick Vilmé, Melanie Y. Brierre, Dr. Rudy Magloire, Dr. John Yates
12
M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y R E P O R T
ANNEX A
“NOUVEAU GCH”
MARCH 22 - 23 2010
FACILATATOR: DR. HARRY GEFFRARD

Grace Children’s Hospital
Port-au-Prince, Haïti
Prepared by:
Victoria Jean-Louis
Melanie Yates
Relief and Reconstruction Office of ICC
•
Delmas 31 Grace Children’s Hospital P.A.P, Haiti * telephone: 3701-3209 *www.internationalchildcare.org
Workshop Summaries
Background
 
The purpose of the workshop was to obtain input from local GCH staff with the purpose of contributing 
towards the development of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Grace Children’s Hospital. Each 
level of personnel was represented by a member of their division.  
The key issues that emerged during the workshop are presented in the following summary. The agenda 
and list of participants can be found below.  
Objective: Creating a broad framework to be used over the next five years for the reconstruction and 
operational plan of the new Grace Children’s Hospital.  
Summary of Results: Through a two day series of discussions, the workshop achieved many of its de‐
sired outcomes. These discussions led to the definition of an agreed upon collective vision for the new 
GCH. Six primary strategic axes towards achieving the vision were identified. 
Historical Context: 
The historical context of Grace Children’s hospital was reviewed to guide the discussions for the plan‐
ning of the future GCH. The dream of the first visionaries was revisited to ensure that the process con‐
forms to the hospital’s founding mission. Within this context, participants identified the values, mission 
and objectives, which have ensured the continued success and existence of GCH over the past 42 years.  
In identifying the institutional strengths and weaknesses as well as external threats and opportunities, 
strategies were devised to promote our existing strengths and correct our weaknesses. Additionally, by 
recognizing the outlying threats, measures to mitigate against the possible negative repercussions were 
integrated into the planning process. The existing opportunities were noted to maximize their potential 
benefits to the project. 
Historically the decision making process undertaken by ICC has been one of collaboration and collective 
thought. This practice guided the discussions and planning throughout the workshop. The guiding notion 
was that many groups would contribute to this effort under the umbrella of our founding mission.  
Institutional Values:  
Are the basic principles that are general and applicable to everyone. If they  are uniform and equal to all, 
then it creates a sense of identity and common sense of purpose. 
• Dedication 
o Fostered by a work environment, which boasts positive interrelations among 
coworkers and supervisors, appropriate workspace and over all sense that the 
work of each individual is a valued part of the whole. 
• Regularity of remuneration 
k
o While there are minor exceptions in the case of emergencies there is a regular‐
ity of pay that is inherent to the institutional culture of GCH.  
• Brotherly Love 
• Credibility  
o Associated with GCH as an institution and its services 
o Employee honesty and expertise develops institutional credibility 
• Punctuality/Regularity 
• Availability  
o This value was noted especially after the earthquake when staff made them‐
selves available in the days following when no one expected that they would.  
Informal Values 
• Respect for division of tasks/responsibilities  
o Promotes accountability  
o Facilitates functional hierarchy 
o Employee commitment suffers when leaders fail to uphold the responsibilities 
associated with their roles 
• Recognizing the role of the state and local culture 
o GCH has held a certain degree of respect for the state. We have tried to inter‐
vene with them at our side rather than imposing ourselves in Haiti and disre‐
garding the state and local culture all together.  
 
Strengths: Refer to the internal strengths of the hospital related to its operation and performance. 
• Qualified Staff 
• Green Space 
• Hospital conveniently situated 
• TB expertise 
• Diversity of funding sources 
• Good division of roles and responsibilities 
• Existence of Ophthalmology clinic 
• Originality and efficiency of PIMUD 
• Successful partnership models with the private and public sectors 
• Accessibility of health services 
• Affordability of health services 
• Notoriety in the provision of services 
• Quality of health services 
• Seniority of staff 
 
Weaknesses: Refer to internal structures, operations and policies that have been identified as perform‐
ing at a sub‐standard level at GCH 
1. Insufficient personnel 
2. Cramped physical space 
3. Insufficient funding 
4. Lack of emergency services  
o No neonatal services 
o No intensive care unit 
5. Lack of pediatric sub specialties 
6. Lack of opportunities for upward mobility 
7. Non‐competitive salaries 
8. Absence of payroll vouchers 
9. Extended wait time for certain services 
 
Threats: Refer to factors in the external context of GCH with the potential to negatively effect its opera‐
tion and success. Particular attention was paid to the new threats emerging since the earthquake of 
January 12th.  
1. Increased Political instability and insecurity  
2. Intensified social and economic strain 
3. Free health services being offered currently 
4. Mass exodus of population to the countryside 
5. Duplicity of relief efforts 
6. Increased dependence on donors 
7. Conflicting demands/agendas of donors 
8. Earthquake aftershocks 
 
Opportunities: Refer to the circumstances/relationships with potential to further the agenda of the re‐
building project.  
 Interest demonstrated by other donors  
a. Food for the Poor, Direct Relief International and OMCOR have expressed inter‐
est in this project 
 Post disaster context favors funding for rebuilding 
 Good relationship with MSPP 
 Credibility of ICC/Trust of Donors 
 
Support Groups Refer to groups that lend financial, moral, institutional and other types of support to 
GCH. 
• Ministry of Public Health 
• UNICEF 
• OMS 
• MSH 
• CDC, USAID‐ funder 
• CIDA 
• AOPS 
• CFTC 
• Local donors (institutions/individuals) 
• International ICC – U.S., Canada, and D.R. 
 
Concerned Parties: Refer to groups that have a vested interest in ICC, GCH and the services provided. 
• Patients 
• Personnel/Staff 
• Donors 
• Government health structure‐ MSPP 
• Concurrent institutions 
• “Boards” – as they have partial responsibility for the results 
 
 
The historical review of the past 42 years of GCH’s existence led to the identification and analysis of key 
values and strengths that have contributed to the success and reputable service that ICC is known for. 
The success of this model underlined our discussions for the future hospital and it’s operations. In addi‐
tion, by detailing the weaknesses recognized throughout, the group was able to  devise ways to counter 
them and their adverse effects. The overall institutional culture of GCH provided a foundation for the 
discussions and supported an open platform where voices and sentiments could be expressed freely. 
This atmosphere and context resulted in the collective vision for the new GCH and a strategic axes plan 
of action to achieve this vision. These items are detailed below.   
GROUP VISION FOR THE NEW GCH: 
 
 
Participants found the following six strategic axes to be of greatest importance moving forward. It is be‐
lieved that efforts to satisfy priorities and objectives in these five areas will ensure the accomplishment 
of ‘the dream’.  
Continued  Human Resource 
Education  Management 
Equipment and 
Fundraising 
Maintenance 
Reconstruction of  Vision  Partnerships with 

international and 
of GCH 
Hospital  local training 
institutions 
DESIGN/LAYOUT FOR THE NEW GCH: 
• Out Patient Clinic 
o Reception 
o Waiting Room 
o Patient Accounts 
o Consultation Room 
1. Pediatrics 
2. TB Clinic 
3. OBGYN Clinic 
a. Pre Natal 
b. Midwifery 
c. Family Planning 
4. Prenatal Clinic 
5. ARV/VCT Clinic 
6. Counseling 
7. Dermatology Clinic 
8. ORL Clinic 
9. Family Planning 
10. Triage 
  
• Community Health Center 
o   Conference room 
o   Nurses Station 
• Offices 
1.Supervisor 
2.Health Agents 
3.Chief Community Health Officer 
4.Head Nurse 
5.Training Supervisor 
• Laboratory and Radiology 
• Pharmacy 
• Archives 
• Administration 
• Conference Room 
• Research and Statistics Dept. 
• Laundry Room 
• Cafeteria 
• Kitchen 
• School 
• Residence 
• Postpartum/Psychology Unit 
• Sterilization Room 
• Hospitalization 
o Pediatrics (100 beds) 
o Neonatal 
o Intensive Care 
o Emergency Room 
o TB 
o Postpartum/Psychology 
o Pediatrics 
1. Maternity 
a. Waiting Room 
b. Reception 
c. Delivery Room 
d. Operation Room 
e. Labor Room 
f. Recovery Room 
g. Gynecology Room 
Workshop Summaries
Follow up Action: 
Operations plan to be drawn up by National Staff by April 15th.  
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: 
Employee  Position  Years of Service 

Gladys LaPierre  Regional Coordina‐ 2 years 
tor 
Esther P. Cheril  Resp. S.G.  13 years 
Sabine Charles  Physician  13 months  
Marie Lina Excellent  Physician  3 years 
Witchelle Celestin D.  Nurse  5 years 
Loubens Gabriel  Accountant  3 years 
Jacsnine T. Bien‐Aime  Assistant Statistician 12 years 
Marie Marthe Merisier P.L.  Nurse  8 years 

Adelaide Nicolas  Tech Resp SAD  4 years 
Gladys Duchatellier  Pediatrician  3 months 
Jocelyne Arnoux  Nurse  15 years 
Yirose Lestin  Nurse  4 years 
Ritza Eugene  Physician  5 years 
Frederic Vilme  Physician  15 years 
Patrick Hyppolite  Accountant  5 years 
Marie Carmelle Allot  Nurse  12 years 
Prou Hoverlaw  Adm. Dir.  1 year 
Louis Philippe Roche   Physician,OBGYN  1 month 
 
Margentine Saint Prard  ASS RESH  2 years  
Maurice Fils Mainville  Technical Director  1 year  
 

Final Comprehensive Workshop Summary

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Final Comprehensive Workshop Summary

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Workshop Summaries

R&R Office ICC

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR GCH RECONSTRUCTION

”NOUVEAU GCH”: MARCH 22 & 23

”RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING”: MARCH 26-27

Hospital inpatient care set up under tents in the yard

WORKSHOP 1: “NOUVEAU GCH”

GROUP VISION FOR THE NEW GCH:

SIX STRATEGIC AXES:

DESIGN/ LAYOUT FOR THE NEW GCH:

Out Patient Clinic

Inpatient (100 beds)

Community Health Center

Laboratory and Radiology

Operations Plan to be drawn up by National Staff by April 15th.

WORKSHOP 2: “RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING”

The following are the additions/ modifications set out by Group 2:

1. PIMUD (Urban TB Initiative)

1. Increase in cost of living

1. Collaborations with other NGO’s

Additional Support Groups

1. Local volunteers (ie 46,000 American citizens living in Haiti)

In reference to non-academic medical partnerships, according to GCH staff, partnerships with

• Generate a list of list of 10 potential institutional partners

• Historical themes that have shaped our past

• Nationalization vs a “blended team” of expatriates and Haitians

• Current annual budget

• Where does the final decision making power lie?

o In the absence of the Haitian board perhaps a member of the R&R

o It was also suggested that a provisional advisory committee be selected

FACILATATOR: DR. HARRY GEFFRARD

Reconstruction of Vision Partnerships with

Employee Position Years of Service

Marie Marthe Merisier P.L. Nurse 8 years

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Reconstruction of  Vision  Partnerships with 

Employee  Position  Years of Service 

Marie Marthe Merisier P.L.  Nurse  8 years 