By Way of Antigua, 2009
The Building Is Not the System
Field Notes Series: The Soft Side
Entry #1 of 6
Disclaimer
Field Notes reflect the editorial analysis and personal reflection of the Managing Editor, informed by direct professional experience across Caribbean healthcare systems. These observations are the author’s own and do not represent the official positions of any government, institution, or commercial partner.
Nobody tells you, when you arrive, that you have already begun.
I came to Antigua in 2009 as part of a management team. The work was specific: to support the opening of what was then called Mount St. John’s Medical Centre — now Sir Lester Bird Medical Centre — the country’s national public hospital. I had a role, a mandate, a flight booked, and a clear idea of what the task required.
What I did not know was that I was also beginning something I would not be able to name for another seventeen years. A way of working. A philosophy, if that word is not too grand for something learned mostly through difficulty and close observation. A conviction about where the real work lives inside health systems — and how rarely it appears in the budget line.
I have come to call it the soft side. This series is about what seventeen years of working on it taught me, and the places and people it took to learn.
The soft side is not the opposite of the hard side. It is what makes the hard side work.
The hospital was a serious undertaking. A new national facility — purpose-built, well-resourced by regional standards, long anticipated. The hard side was largely in place: the structure, the equipment, the clinical systems, the physical infrastructure of a functioning modern hospital.
My role, along with others, was the rest of it.
The rest of it is harder to explain to people who have not worked inside it. It is the culture of an institution — how people treat each other, how decisions get made, how information flows and where it stops. It is the difference between a team that functions under pressure and one that fractures. It is the patient experience, from the moment someone walks through the door to the moment they leave, and everything that happens in between that has nothing to do with clinical protocol and everything to do with how human beings behave when they are frightened, or hurting, or uncertain.
It is also, in a public hospital, the relationship between the institution and the population it serves. In Antigua, that relationship carried history. The community had opinions about the hospital before it opened — expectations, anxieties, inherited experiences of what public healthcare in the Caribbean had and had not delivered. A new building does not reset that history. It inherits it.
A new building does not reset history. It inherits it.
This was the first lesson Antigua taught me: that infrastructure is not neutral. A hospital is not simply a place where clinical work happens. It is a social institution, embedded in a community’s understanding of itself, its government, and what it can expect from the systems built in its name. The work of opening a hospital — the real work — is the work of building that relationship from the ground up, in real time, with real people who have real reasons to be skeptical.
You cannot do that work from behind a desk. You cannot do it through a policy document or a staff handbook, however well written. You do it by being present — in the wards, in the waiting areas, in the conversations that happen when people think no one of consequence is listening. You do it by taking seriously the things that are easy to dismiss as operational detail: the temperature of the waiting room, the clarity of the signage, the tone in which a receptionist answers a question. None of these are small. Together, they are the institution.
I learned this in Antigua. Not all at once. Slowly, through the accumulated evidence of what worked and what didn’t, what built confidence and what eroded it, what the staff needed that they were not asking for directly and what the community needed that it had not yet found a way to say.
One moment, above all others, brought it into focus.
Early in my time at the hospital, we implemented patient satisfaction surveys — a standard tool, imported from a context where such tools are standard. One of the questions was familiar to anyone who has worked in healthcare quality: Would you recommend this facility to a friend or family member? The options were yes, no, and maybe.
One respondent selected yes. Then, in the space provided for comment, wrote four words: I have no other choice.
I had spent the five years prior to Antigua working in a U.S. academic medical centre. In that world, the question of whether a patient would recommend the facility is a genuine market question. There are other hospitals. There are choices. Patient satisfaction scores shape reputation, referrals, and revenue. The question assumes alternatives.
In Antigua, in 2009, there were no alternatives. There was one national public hospital. If you were sick and you needed hospital care, you came here. You selected yes — because what else would you select? — and then, in four words, you said what the yes actually meant.
It was not satisfaction. It was the absence of options dressed in the language of endorsement.
That response stopped me. Not because it was a complaint — it wasn’t, not exactly. But because it revealed, more clearly than any briefing document had, the frame I had brought with me and the frame that was actually required. The tools of the soft side do not travel neutrally. The assumptions embedded in them — about choice, about competition, about what a patient is in relation to a health system — are products of the contexts in which they were designed. In a small island developing state, those assumptions can quietly distort the very thing you are trying to measure.
What that patient was telling me was something far more important than whether they were satisfied. They were describing their relationship to the only health system they had. One of total dependency. One in which the quality of care they received was not a matter of preference or selection but of what was available, on this island, on this day, with the resources that existed.
The magnitude of that — the weight of being the only option — settled over the work differently after that. Staff satisfaction, patient experience, institutional culture: all of it took on new meaning when understood through the lens of a population with nowhere else to go. The soft side, in this context, was not a competitive advantage. It was a moral obligation.
I have no other choice. Four words that reframed seventeen years of work.
Antigua also taught me the first things about the Caribbean as a professional environment. That trust is built slowly and held personally. That credentials matter less than presence, and presence matters less than consistency. That the region is, in many respects, a small world distributed across a large body of water — and that this changes everything about how information travels, how relationships form, and how things actually get done.
In a small island, everyone knows everyone. The chief medical officer knows the minister knows the patient who has been waiting longest. That proximity is not always comfortable. But it is, when you learn to work with it rather than against it, an asset that no large health system can replicate. It means that accountability is personal in a way that anonymity prevents elsewhere. It means that trust, once built, travels. And it means that how you show up in one room will be known in the next room before you arrive.
I did not fully appreciate this in Antigua. I was still learning the terrain. But I was paying attention, which turns out to be the most important qualification for the soft side of this work.
Credentials matter less than presence. Presence matters less than consistency.
I left Antigua with something I could not yet articulate. A way of entering a health system — not as an expert arriving with answers, but as someone arriving with questions and the patience to wait for the real ones to surface. A conviction that the human systems inside an institution are always the harder problem, and almost always the last to receive serious investment. And a growing sense that this work — the soft side — was where I was most useful, and where the need was greatest.
From Antigua, the work took me to Santo Domingo. Then to the British Virgin Islands. Then to the USVI. Then home, briefly. Then to St. Kitts. Then to the Bahamas. Then to Montserrat. Then to a conference in Colombia and a conversation I did not plan to have, with a person I had not planned to meet, that led to this platform you are reading now.
Every step in that journey came by way of something that came before it. Every lesson built on the last. And all of it — in ways I am only now beginning to see clearly — began in Antigua, in 2009, with the understanding that a building is not a system.
The system is the people inside it. The work is supporting their readiness and their requirements for execution.
About This Series
The Soft Side is a seven-part Field Notes series tracing seventeen years of health system work across the Caribbean — and the people, places, and lessons that shaped it. New parts publish each Sunday.
Coming next Sunday:
Part 2 — By Way of Santo Domingo: The Work Travels With You
Two years advising Hospital General De La Plaza De La Salud. What happens when you take soft-side practice into a new language, a new culture, and a different kind of institution — and what comes back to you when you do.
Share:
