Locating Hospital
Cons of Site C and Benefits of site A for locating a Hospital
Introduction
There are varied issues that would affect the construction of a local hospital in Leeds West Yorkshire. This is based on the environment, the annual expected returns on investment by the shareholders of the member companies and the costs that would be injected into the projected. This paper focusses on three sites; A, B and C, it tries to give reasons as to why site A is a better site to locate the hospital and the disadvantages that arise in site C.
Hospital Location
This is site is faced with high economic issues in terms of labour that leads. The supply for labour is at a high in eastern end of the District this results to high rate of unemployment. The few industries present like Coal Town have employees with low wages which gives the construction of the hospital better opportunity for available labour which is important. With most of the people being unskilled due relative limited number of companies that require high skills, the hospital offers an opportunity to the locals to be trained in high skilled areas like ICT. As a result, the location of the hospital will spiral into increase in skilled workers (citation here). On the other end, site C is attributed to a high demand for labour with most of them being skilled. Due to the low economic standards in the area, car ownership is at a low when compared to site C. This offers the site a good opportunity for movement of ambulances in and out of the hospital with limited traffic.
In regards to population, site A is low in population when compared to site C. The reduced number of population offers the site a good chance to expand and deposit hazardous products in the best way without having any fatalities. On the other hand, site C has a high population with children, this makes it a bad area to build a hospital considering the risky tools that hospitals deal with like needles, chemicals and diseases among others. Additionally, this site is projected to increase in the near future with a competition for space bound to happen.
Site A is advantaged due to the high number of local government wards which is attributed to high proportion of population reliant on means tested benefits. The other sites like site C is disadvantaged in this regard as it faced with limited number of local government wards.
Health deprivation is of great concern in site A when compared to site C. Site A is attributed to be high in Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (citation here). Most of the government wards are counted to be in this regard. This accords the site a good opportunity to manage this issues as it coincides with the objective of hospitals to reduced health deprivation. Close monitor on diet and cancer would be best done through building a hospital. On the other hand, site C has low health deprivation meaning a huge number of the hospital is not in need of the hospital as it site A.
There has been an increase in the numbers of low Birth weight in babies in site A, a deprived area, which is higher than in site C. This goes on to affect the level of poverty of the area. Close monitor is vital for its management making the construction of the hospital vital to site A.
The shareholders are expected to get high returns on investment in site A than in site C. This is attributed to the high demand for the hospital in site A and the probability for growth in addition to easy management of its operation. This adds onto the support that the political scene accords the project with the local MP Jerry Bourne more being focused on local issues than the Western part of the district (citation here).
Conclusion
The Construction of the hospital in Eastern part of the District offers an opportunity for growth and development in skills. In addition, the environment, in terms of skills offers a good base for advancement of employment and decline of health issues like child mortality among others. While the local politicians and groupings would welcome the move.
Bibliography
[Reference here]
