Emergis en Parnassia Bavo gaan voor fusie

Ggz-instellingen Emergis en Parnassia Bavo Groep zijn voornemens te fuseren. De raden van bestuur hebben het voornemen inmiddels voorgelegd aan de medewerkers, ondernemingsraden, centrale cliëntenraden en de vakgroepen.

Het fusiebesluit hangt al geruime tijd in de lucht. Sinds begin dit jaar onderzoeken de twee instellingen nauwere samenwerking. Aanvankelijk ging het daarbij om samenwerking met behoud van zelfstandigheid voor Emergis. Vanwege de kwetsbare positie van het relatief kleine Emergis is nu dan definitief gekozen voor versmelting. Door de fusie zijn er volgens de fusiepartijen meer garanties dat er in regio Zeeland een volledig aanbod aan geestelijke gezondheidszorg ter beschikking blijft.


Binnen Zeeland leeft onrust over de voorgenomen fusie met de Parnassia Bavo groep, met ruim 8000 werknemers de grootste ggz-instelling in Nederland. In een persbericht laten de twee ggz-instellingen weten dat  de Zeeuwse identiteit van Emergis behouden blijft. De fusie heeft geen directe personele gevolgen. Ook worden patiënten vanuit dezelfde locaties bediend.


Emergis en Parnassia Bavo maken zich niettemin grote zorgen over de bezuinigingen in de ggz. Zij verwachten dat die door een krimpend behandelaanbod grote gevolgen zal hebben voor het personeelsbestand. De raden van bestuur hebben met het oog hierop zestien resultaten geformuleerd om de kwaliteit van zorg te verbeteren en de kosten per patiënt te laten dalen.

4 Reacties

om een reactie achter te laten


19 december 2011

"Zeeuwse identiteit" ? Nog even en dan vinden Zeeuwen zich beter dan de bijvoorbeeld Friezen. Al het gezwam over een zeeuwse identiteit die allang niet meer bestaat ook trouwens zo die al bestond, slaat nergens op. Dit gaat wederom over centjes mensen. En geachte "besturen" de Gouden handdrukken al vertrokken in de plannen?
Och och de ouwe riagg over in bavo en daarna parnassia en psyq en de rest van de nu poten en geen hond die iemand meer kan vinden, zelfs de telefoniste antwoordde een paar jaar terug alweer aan de westersingel dat ze geen idee had waar een persoon zat...
Prima taktiek als je wilt dat mensen je niet kunnen aanspreken op falen onder andere, en nog iets geachte ggzmensen, zorg dat jullie bazen je niet meer bang voor hoeft te zijn wanneer je je mond open wenst te doen over bijvoorbeeld familierecht, aangezien tiot nu toe werd verzwegen in duizenden zaken. Lekkere kinderbescherming is dat.


14 april 2012

The discussion of IQ vs. emcievahents vs. crime is interesting. Here, in complete absence of politically correct nutjobs, we can even afford to actually discuss it. Here are my 2 cents.First, the East Asians. The Chinese political climate cannot be overlooked. If we look at the last 400 years, when the Chinese and Europeans have come to frequent mutual contact... China at that time was a centralized bureaucratic, sclerotic state. Any sufficiently capable people were perceived as a threat to the emperor, and as potential sources of disruption. The European missionaries were quick to notice this: "everyone who possessed some kind of talent was at the same time paralyzed by fear that his actions will result in punishment rather than in personal well-being".Europe, at the same time, was a mixture of states. Some of them went the way of China: for example, Spain, which turned from an expansive, sea-faring society of the early 1500s into a paralyzed empire living on slave labour in less than 100 years. But Spain was Spain, not the whole continent; and talented people from Spain would simply run away to northern Italy or France or the Netherlands, where an entirely different mindset ruled, and where they would be welcome with their skills.It is also interesting to look on Japan. In the 16-th century, individual states were warring against each other, and every technological advantage was welcome. At that time, Japanese would welcome Europeans with open arms and eagerly learn any skills, especially military skills, from them. Around 1580, Japan produced probably more muskets than the whole Europe together. Japanese rejected Christianity early, but were still eager for secular knowledge - and the Dutch and the Portuguese were still eager to provide it to them.But once the shogun won control of the whole Japan, the entire foreign lore was banned, the muskets destroyed, and the society fell into 200-year stupor designed to keep the shogun in power forever. Second, the rule of the IQ outliers - well, you forget the fact that, in 16th century, the Chinese population was about 20x bigger than the English population. Even if the Chinese IQ had less outliers, you would still expect to find some Chinese Newtons in sample 20 times larger.Look no further than the Northern and Southern Korea. There are 3 times as much Southern Koreans than Northern Koreans, but, from the technological and economical point of view, the Southern society is light years ahead, even though they started from roughly the same point in 1953. I would say that this is because of the extremely static and ideological nature of the NK society. High-IQ individuals there must be of good "political" profile to be allowed to the university; and even then, why should they study hard sciences or technology, if they stand to gain no material or societal advantages from it? The tops of the ladders are occupied by the apparatchiks, "stomping on human faces forever".Chinese and mathematics - hmm, in the last 20 years, Western universities are full of Chinese students of mathematics, and it has already produced some significant results. So far, "we" have some advantage, but do not count on it for long.The Indians are quite good in mathematics, but they usually seem to perform their best outside India. Maybe the Indian university system suffers from some bureaucratic sclerosis as well. I know of one large exception, and that is Kanpur Institute of Technology.My conclusionThe well-being or wrong-being of a nation depends on whether the best and brightest individuals have free way to use and develop their skills at will. There are always such individuals, though some nations may have more of them, and some less. But a society which will persecute them or force them into inactivity through bureaucratic means, stands to lose the most. Especially in the modern world, where mobility of workforce is higher than ever.


15 april 2012

mHQkpf <a href="">iovbmtaojdur</a>


17 april 2012

g3tEXu , [url=]rtquhidbwefl[/url], [link=]xrbxntomtvcj[/link],