It's alarming to hear that a renowned hospital would be so careless in the safety of the community. When there's a legitimate cause of the high rates of infection, what's the use of making it seem not so accurate? Fact to the matter is, Stanford should be held accountable whether there's little to more infection based of this data. I can't help to think that this hospital is making excuse of saying that the data that the union presented is outdated. For me, having to rely my own health and the rest of my family on a very respected hospital with huge concern of risking their visit to acquire such infection is a big deal for everybody. The new hospital is huge...I wonder if there would be enough workers to be hired? Are they new and not hire this honest union members that courageously stepped forward??? Or could the new big hospital be just enough aesthetics to attract more clients?

When I was in Stanford Hospital a couple of years ago for a knee replacement, I acquired an infection in the knee.

A 5-day stay turned into a 15- day stay--at my financial and physical expense!!

To make matters worse, I was in horrific pain every single night. My morphine pump would be empty by 11:00 pm, and the alarm would go off intermittently all night until a nurse would finally appear to refill it at 7:00 am!

That's right-- I never saw a nurse between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Not even to take my vital signs or replace my IV antibiotics. Couldn't even get ice for the knee-- unless a doctor brought it! For 15 long, long painful days!

The union should be using concerns about infection rates in its negotiations, it's very salient to working conditions. And when else are they going to have leverage to improve things? The charge that they are using "strong-arm" tactics when the issue is infection rates is heavy handed. Even if they were, doesn't mean they are wrong.

I have observed a lot of ways Stanford could improve in this regard, too. If the union is able to leverage improvements in their negotiations, Stanford will benefit in the long run, too. So will the community.

I've worked in health care for 27 years. Don't be fooled by union deception. Stanford is deserving of their excellent reputation. Anyone in any public setting could be exposed to TB, that's a red herring. Furthermore, all hospital facilities struggle with hospital acquired infections, it's an unfortunate reality and the fact that Stanford has improved their statistics is telling. If you work in health care, you know what lengths SEIU will go to in order to get what they want. It's all about more union members so they can get more union dues. Don't be fooled by these incredibly misleading allegations.

[Post removed.]

Over the years I have had numerous surgeries. It's not surprising they have a high infection rate. There is an APPALLING lack of hand washing by all the staff. Instead of washing their hands with hot soap and water before and after every patient contact, they rub a little alcohol based gel on their hands and pretend they're clean. They can have all the training in the world, but if they don't follow the rules what's the use. And who knows what goes on when they're out of my sight. When I practiced dentistry I washed my hands before and after every patient contact-----no exceptions. If I can do it, why not them? [Portion removed.]

It sounds to me like the Union is trying to negotiate with the hospital by playing dirty. Infections in hospitals happen, let's face it they are full of sick people and germs spread. If someone is not following the hygiene rules (hand washing, masks, etc.) the Hospital should be able to discipline them up to termination but the Union prevents that from happening.

In this case it sounds like Stanford is doing the right thing and addressing the problem, but if the SEIU members are not following the rules then the problem seems to be with them and they should be replaces with people that will follow the rules and be concerned with patient care and health.

'State data shows that Stanford first had a huge jump in C. diff cases in 2011. The rate between 2011 and 2012 was the same at 1.05 cases per 1,000 patient days compared to 0.30 in 2010.'

I had a friend who acquired C. diff at Stanford Hospital in early 2012. It made a horrible situation intolerable, being immobilized in traction with skull and pelvic fractures from an accident and then having to deal with the symptoms of C. diff (painful bloating and diarrhea). They had to postpone surgery because of it which lengthened his recovery. I'm very glad for the good care that made him well again, but the infection was preventable.