麻州地鐵發言人Joe
Pesaturo表示，交通警察 (Transit Police)的警探們決定，肇事車輛的駕駛是一名男子，他故意開車衝撞停車場頂樓的障礙物，以致水泥塊跌落，砸碎了車站大廳頂和夾層一帶的玻璃板。
劍橋市消防局在推特上貼出照片，顯示一輛車半懸在麻州地鐵停車場的屋頂上，車頭嚴重毀損。劍橋市的消防局、警察局及急救服務局都派人趕往這一車禍事件現場。
Joe Pesaturo表示，駕車人士已被送往當地醫院，車站大堂內也有一人手部受輕傷。麻州地鐵Alewife站在清理期間，無限期關閉。Alewife和 David之間的紅線地鐵服務將暫停，以巴士替代。
消防局透露，他們趕到Alewife車站5樓停車場現場時，發現駕駛在車內昏迷不醒，立即安排送醫。
麻州地鐵人員表示，幸好事故是發生在星期六，車站內人不多。
 |
| 紐英崙中華公所2023年職員主持會議。左起核數張青梅，財政余寶愛、主席雷國輝、中文 書記翁宇才，英文書記阮鴻燦。 (周菊子攝) |
(Boston Orange 周菊子波士頓報導) 紐英崙中華公所1月31日召開2023年首次董事大會，一口氣通過3次會議紀錄，歡迎5名新董事，說明大同村停車場蓋房子工程已啟動，定名「博愛樓」，和中國超市租約爭議，已訴請法院裁決，預定5月份組團訪台灣。
 |
| 中華公所董事們為大同村停車場新樓命名投票。 (周菊子攝) |
紐英崙中華公所主席雷國輝首先歡迎5名新董事，分別為洪門致公堂的游誠康，華裔退伍軍人會的司徒文信，余風采堂的余國華，台山鄉親聯誼會的黃紹培，以及原本是台山鄉親會代表的鄺元傑轉為溯源公所代表。
 |
| 中華公所職員為物業小組新成員數算投票結果。 |
中華公所董事們當晚就仁愛，博愛，盛世，恆理，大同新村，大同樓等眾多名稱投票表決，最後在第二輪投票後，以19票通過選用”博愛樓”。
 |
| 波士頓洪門致公堂出席中華公所的新董事游誠康報到。 (周菊子攝) |
應聘為中華公所合約顧問的建築師鄭欣豪，當晚也在會議上以簡報影片報告了工程概況，內容包括這將是一棟高6層，共85個單位的樓宇，會有37個停車位，住戶家庭收入限制為平均中位收入的60%。共同發展商為Beacon社區 (Harrison
Affordable LLC)。
 |
| 余風采堂出席中華公所的新董事余國華領取出席章。(周菊子攝) |
紐英崙中華公所當晚並投票選出周萬欽、司徒文信加入物業小組，何遠光雖與周萬欽同票，但決定退讓。中華公所還為華埠餐廳租約一事，舉行了閉門會議。
 |
| 波士頓華裔退伍軍人會會長司徒文信重回中華公所當出席代表。(周菊子攝) |
 |
| 沈其樂和現任波士頓房屋長的Sheila Dillon。(檔案照片，周菊子攝) |
這9人包括曾在波士頓重建局工作22年，離任時已高居波士頓市計畫長一職，現為麻省理工學院物業中心主任的沈其樂 (Kairo Shen) 。
第80章條文 (Article 80)是波士頓市於1960年代制定，對面積超過2萬平方英尺，單位數15個以上的土地發展計畫，做更仔細審視的規定。吳弭市長希望完整檢視這一條文，以確保其可預測性與一貫性，進而協助波士頓市因應興建住宅、繁榮經濟，為波士頓市創造機會的需要。
在波士頓市長辦公室發出的聲明中，吳弭市長上任後新聘的波士頓市計畫長Arthur
Jemison表示，他有信心指導委員會將提供獨特見解，協助波市頓計畫發展局改革。
9人小組成員包括:
Joseph Bonfiglio，他從2009年起就在代表2萬5000名勞工的麻州及北新英格蘭區域協會擔任商業經理。
Anthony D'Isidoro，奧斯頓公民協會 (Allston Civic Association)會長。他也是Veronica
B Smith耆英多元服務中心等機構的董事會主席或董事。
Fernando J. Domenech, Jr., DHK建築公司董事長。
Colleen Fonseca，有色建築工人聯盟 (Builders of Color Coalition)
主任，同時也是房地產金融協會(Real
Estate Finance Association )董事。
Beyazmin Jimenez，東北大學計畫及地產系多元、平等、包容及文化主任。他曾任麻州充足住房協會(Abundant
Housing MA) 董事會董事長。
Matthew Kiefer，Goulston & Storrs律師樓土地應用律師，他也是該公司氣候變遷韌性工作小組的共同主席。
Steve Samuels，波士頓商業地產發展商Samuels & Associates的創辦人及主席。他同時是公園學校樓宇及場地委員會校董，以及愛默生學院校董。
Kirk Sykes，Accordia夥伴這波士頓地產投資及發展公司的常務董事經理。他也是波士頓公民設計委員會委員，具競爭力內城計畫房地產主管協會主席。他還曾經是波士頓聯邦儲備銀行董事會主席。
|
|
(Boston Orange 編譯) 波士頓公校及數個麻州學區公校，2月2日宣佈，天氣太冷，溫度太低，為顧及學生安全，2月3日週五，停課一天。
波士頓市公校總監Mary
Skipper今(2)日下午發信給學生家長，稱許多學生上學得走路，或在路邊等候搭巴士，天氣太冷的話，學生安全堪虞，公校體系決定3日停課一天。
麻州的Chicopee、Holyoke、春田( Springfield)、屋斯特 (Worcester)，以及傅萊明罕 (Framingham)等市鎮，今日稍後，也都宣佈了公校明日停課，屋斯特校區還在臉書上貼文，稱課前及課餘項目，也都一併取消。
國家氣象局氣象學家Hayden
Frank指出，2月3日週五下午時，波士頓市的氣溫可能降至華氏6度，到晚上時，可能低至華氏零下15度。天氣預報人員稱，這將是自2016年情人節那個週末，波士頓市氣溫驟降至零下9度以來最冷的一天。不過由於風速每小時35到45英里，感覺起來會更冷。到週五晚上時，波士頓市內的風寒 (windchill)
程度，甚至能低至零下30度。
氣象服務局針對除了瑪莎葡萄園島(Martha’s
Vineyard)和南特基(Nanticket)之外的整個麻州，已於週四早上發出了週五早上至週六的風寒警告，。
The Physical Determinants of Health: the Building as a Health Intervention?
Lucas DiLeo, Contributing Writer for Boston Orange
A growing body of research suggests that the design and architecture of a health care facility substantially influences the health outcomes of the patients in it. Yet there are few formal experiments to develop and test these ideas about the physical determinants of healthcare and incorporate them into design practices. This was the conclusion of an interdisciplinary panel of bioethicists last week at the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics.
The speakers, summarizing their three years’ collaboration, called for a more ‘systems based’ approach to exploring, testing and evaluating how design can enhance the care delivery environment and patient health outcomes. And that these insights be brought into the formal health facility design process.
How can buildings shape the well-being of patients?
There is an effort to understand how the buildings in which clinicians practice can shape the health and well-being of patients, according to Kelsey Berry, PhD, Associate Faculty Director of the Master of Bioethics Degree Program at HMS and panel Moderator.
Kerry noted the industry’s increasing focus upon the social determinants of health. There has been a paradigm shift. And we have the opportunity to do this again.
So how should healthcare respond? What the role should health groups play in testing and developing design solutions? And what values should shape particular design interventions?
The built environment as a parameter of care
The built environment is a parameter of care in the view of Diana C. Anderson, M.D., M.Arch., Geriatric Neurology Research Fellow at the VA Boston Healthcare System. And needs to be considered alongside other parameters of care. As medical students they took courses on determents of community health. But no one was talking about the physical determinants of health.
Their view is the built environment has as much impact on us as other medical interventions, and essentially it is a medical intervention. It can effect us as much as a medication or a procedure.
Healthcare design and its impact upon the care environment
There are a number of qualities of built space that are reasonably well documented, and generally inferable as to how they would affect us, according to William J. Hercules, M.Arch., CEO of WJH Health and former President of American College of Healthcare Architects.
Such as how it looks; access to as view of nature; lighting or acoustic effects that may have a positive or negative effect on our mood or well-being.
Hercules’ view is that architecture could benefit from a bioethics lens. Outside of building codes or various guidelines there is a lack of structure around the health implications of design. Design projects have millions of decisions by many more people than just architects, but these decisions are not well regulated like pharmaceutical development.
He quoted Winston Churchill: “We shape our buildings and they shape us”. And Florence Nightingale wrote about how soldiers did not die from battle wounds but from the environment of care.
However, code changes are really about minimum compliance. The bigger idea is the codes themselves are not transformational. We need a different kind of infrastructure and organizational Infrastructure to do these things.
What is the framework that can be applied to design and healthcare?
Stowe L. Teti, M.A., Clinical Ethicist at Inova Health System discussed examples of the impact of design on health practices and outcomes.
Stowe framed the design-ethical issues in clinical care: incidental events around facility operations and deliberate actions that are taken in terms of physical design. And he raised the question: is it appropriate to do research on the built environment outside of a research context. There is no oversight required to put people in a physical setting.
One example from Canada about people living in long term care facilities - approximately 2.1 million, a tiny percentage of the total population. But around 40% of COVID deaths were from such facilities. Upon further analysis one third of the nursing homes had multiple occupancy of rooms and communal design. Those facilities were responsible for 2/3rd of those deaths. So it is not just the settings but the features of those settings that can have an impact,
Sometimes our decisions are being influence by the space we are in. Another study researched the impact of design upon clinical care and child birth. They found facilities which had more surgical suites performed more c-sections than those that devoted more space for natural birth.
And COVID illustrated how in solving one problem they created another - such a moving IV pumps outside of rooms to lower staff exposure risk. Which led to patients being less closely monitored, which also coincided with visitation restriction. During this period they saw increases in pressure ulcers and hospital acquired illness.
Evidence Based Design leading to differential outcomes.
A study of Columbia Presbyterian ICU indicated that sicker patients assigned to the corner rooms did not do as well, according to Dr Anderson. Those had greater morbidity and mortality due to the lower visibility from the staffing stations. Our expectation is that the care is equal to what the person in the next room receives- but what if not every room in the hospital does not allow the same opportunity to get better.
Another is a study of sink availability by McGill University. They found that every additional meter that must be walked by healthcare workers decreased the likelihood of hand washing by 10%.
To discourage dementia patients from leaving the facility, one home applied masking tape in horizontal bars on the floor in front of the doors. Where the stripes were applied vertically the patients would walk right past them. Patients misperceived the horizontal bars as a 3-dimensional stairs which may not be welcoming to someone frail. The question raised: is there a difference between using medication to limit wandering vs using architecture to induce a psychological state to achieve the same end?
The natural progression of using illusions that deceive is complete immersion. An example of a dementia village - the original is in the Netherlands and others have popped up around the globe. They permit permissive wanderings by the patient. An artificial reality of a community of streets and retail shops. An illusion of freedom but does not lead to the outside world. One can go to a supermarket or barber or pub, but ultimately it is a gated dwelling unit.
Is there a right to reality for patients with advanced dementia?
These are examples of the emerging ethical issues in long term care design for which there are no research or oversight but they believe should. Such as the perception that the patient is free to leave, when they are not. Or the immersive settings that convince residents they are somewhere else or in a different time period. Controlling behavior thru design interventions: not different than interventions undertaken in medical pharmaceutical development in their opinion.
Institutional policy and the built environment
Do healthcare systems need to rebuild hospitals? Not necessarily, according to David A. Deemer, M.D., Bioethicist and Internal Medicine Resident at University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Policies are another tool. They govern how we operate within buildings and can mitigate harmful effects of a given space. They offer flexibility and can be rapidly implemented. And cost a lot less than a new hospital building.
For instance, a study on visitation polices by 32 hospitals found that strict no visitation policies led to more effective disease isolation. However, patients experienced increased rates of pressure ulcers, falls and sepsis. And loss of patient’s connection to ‘reality’.
Allowing some degree of limited visitation may mitigate some of these adverse association but may cost more.
Takeaways and Next Steps
Teti concluded by offering a set of recommendations.
·
It is time for the built environment to
become part of the same calculation as other physical and psychological factors
affecting care.
·
funding and research is required to
investigate the curative efficacies of specific architectural interventions.
·
The Ethical issues in healthcare
architecture experimentation requires an ethical rubric to clarify intent,
risks and expected outcomes.
· Bioethicists need to engage with health architects around issues of equal access and treatment, prevention of co-morbidities, and use of space to influence people.
Where does the field go next?
Pierre M. Barker, MD, MBChB, Chief Scientific Officer, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, offered a commentary on the presentations and his thoughts on where the field goes next.
First is the extent of family and patient engagement in the design process and testing of the design changes. The starting point is what matters to the patients we are trying to serve Those closest to the patients have the best ideas for how to respond to the needs identified.
Second: what can we learn from using the tools of improvement science - particularly iterative learning and systems thinking to guide the designs. There is an opportunity to incorporate ideas learned from the studies and move into perspective design that use rapid cycle thinking.
One final point, using improvement study designs to test the interesting data accumulating in this field. The studies we saw today are observational, and all retrospectives. He did not see much in terms of good matching. So, they do risk that the evidence on which some profound decisions are being made are potentially at risk of bias.
The next step is what do you do with that data. The idea of co-design and that we can perturb the environment in a prototype way while looking at the results of those tests before committing to expansive, more lasting design changes.
There is a lot that can be done with the data at hand. He wondered if there isn’t a lot of
opportunity for more testing of ideas and more manipulation of the existing
spaces.
 |
| 洪青體育會瑞獅舞動，博得滿堂采聲。 (周菊子攝) |
(Boston
Orange 周菊子波士頓報導)
波士頓市政府2月1日下午1點半，在市政府大樓3樓大堂，舉辦農曆新年慶祝會，以舞獅、民俗舞蹈、音樂演奏，手工藝，書寫春聯等活動，讓人一覽亞裔文化習俗。
在波士頓市府大樓內上班的逾千名員工，約有近百人排排坐在一層層階梯上欣賞，聽著喧天鑼鼓，看著瑞獅疊高，拋撒橘子、生菜及彩色紙條時，紛紛大拍手掌。
 |
| 波士頓市亞裔聯絡員黃楚嵐(左)把波士頓市消防局副局長黃瑞瑜(右二)的父母，黃國麟、 黃周麗桃，伍振中都動員到波士頓市政府的農曆新年慶祝會助陣。 |
會場內還擺出璞石中華文化工作室由王明德，許淑芬、李明雀、馮文鸞的剪紙、捏麵人，中華書法會的會長黃周麗桃和伍振中的即席揮毫寫春聯等攤位。
紐英崙中華公所主席雷國輝，美國洪門致公堂總理余麗媖，紐英崙至孝篤親公所主席陳文珊，昆士小學校長司徒玉瑛等人，全都趕到現場共襄盛舉。
 |
| 波士頓是議會議長Ed Flynn(中)號召波士頓市議員們到市政府大樓三樓大堂，和華人社區 民眾同慶農曆新年。紐英崙中華公所主席雷國輝(右一)，全美洪門致公堂總理余麗媖， (前右三)、黃楚嵐前右四)，左一為紐英崙至孝篤親公所主席陳文珊。 |
波士頓市議會這天正好開會，轄區包括華埠的波士頓市議會議長愛德華費連
(Ed Flynn)特地促進議員們都從5樓下來，到3樓大堂感受一下農曆新年氣氛。波士頓市長的幕僚長朱為婷也特地下樓，舉手和場中眾人打招呼。
 |
| 波士頓市不分區市議員Michael Flaherty在五樓和樓下民眾打招呼。 (周菊子攝) |
 |
| 波士頓市府員工坐在3樓大堂石階上欣賞表演，大拍手掌。 (周菊子攝) |
 |
| 樸石中華文化工作室的許淑芬給波士頓市議會議長一隻捏麵人小兔子。(周菊子攝) |
 |
| 昆士小學的學生們表演扇舞。 |
 |
| 昆士小學樂隊演奏。 |
 |
| 洪青體育會的游成康(右一)帶隊員們到市政府大樓表演。 |
 |
| 昆士小學的醒獅表演，有模有樣。(周菊子攝) |
 |
| 波士頓市長幕僚長朱為婷(中)也到現場打招呼。(周菊子攝) |
 |
| 波士頓市平等及包容長 (Chief of Equity and Inclusion) Mariangely Solis Cervera 致詞。 |
 |
| 波士頓市聯邦關係主任Sam Hyun代表當天未能到場的波士頓市長吳弭 (Michelle Wu)致意。 (周菊子攝) |
 |
| 波士頓市政府大樓。 (周菊子攝) |
