Closing the Village Branch: Who Decides and What Must Remain
The dom zdravlja in Gospić plans to close its branch ambulance in a village of 640 residents, 38 km from the parent institution over a mountain road. The branch has one nurse and a GP who comes two mornings a week; 210 patients are registered there. The county, as founder, has approved the closure to save €46,000 a year and proposes that residents "use the main site or call 194". The nurse is instructed to hand over the keys on 1 March and to remove the vaccination refrigerator. A 78-year-old patient on warfarin and insulin lives 4 km from the branch, has no car and no nearby relative. The branch also holds the only vaccine fridge in that part of the municipality.
1. Who is legally competent to decide on this closure, and what has to be assessed before any decision is taken?
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - separate two decisions. The founder (the county) controls the institution's budget and internal organisation, but a branch ambulance forms part of the network of public health services. Changing that network is not a purely internal budget matter: it requires the approval of the Minister of Health, obtained on the basis of the county's proposal and after the opinion of the Croatian Health Insurance Institute (HZZO). The closure is therefore unlawful until that approval exists.
Step 2 - the substantive test is accessibility, not savings. Before deciding, assess: distance and travel time by public transport and by ambulance; the number and vulnerability of the registered patients (anticoagulated, insulin-dependent, immobile); out-of-hours cover and emergency response times; the vaccination cold chain; and whether another GP is accepting patients.
Step 3 - process. Records must be transferred with patient consent or on a legal basis, patients must be notified individually in writing, and the local community must be consulted. A €46,000 saving is a legitimate consideration but cannot override the legal requirement that primary care remain accessible.
2. The nurse is told to hand over the keys on 1 March regardless. What should she do, and what minimum arrangements must exist before she does?
Read the worked answer
The nurse is a health worker with her own professional duty to protect patients, so she cannot treat the instruction as automatically binding. She should:
- Put her objection in writing to the director and the head nurse, stating the specific risks (anticoagulation monitoring, insulin, cold chain, emergency response times).
- Confirm whether a decision of the Minister and a written plan for continuity of care exist; if not, ask that the handover be postponed.
- If she is ordered again, comply only with what is lawful and safe, and document both the order and her warning.
Before the keys change hands, the following must be in place: a named GP accepting the 210 patients and a defined route for prescriptions and referrals; arrangements for INR monitoring and insulin supplies; transfer of the vaccine refrigerator to a validated cold-chain site with temperature logs; written notice to every patient with telephone numbers; and an emergency plan, since "call 194" is not a substitute for primary care. If these are absent, she should notify the Health Inspectorate.
3. The branch closes anyway and a patient later decompensates. The Inspectorate finds that no ministerial approval existed. Who bears responsibility, and on what basis?
Read the worked answer
Responsibility is layered, not collective.
The institution and its director face administrative and misdemeanour liability for operating outside the network and for failing to ensure accessibility; the Inspectorate may order reopening or other corrective measures, and the founder may face a claim for the consequences. The director, as the responsible person, is the natural defendant in a misdemeanour procedure.
The county is politically and financially accountable for a decision taken without the required approval; its assembly minutes will be evidence.
The nurse is accountable only for what falls within her competence. If she warned in writing and complied under protest, she is a witness, not the responsible person. If she removed the vaccine refrigerator knowing it would break the cold chain, or falsified the handover record, she could be personally accountable. This is why contemporaneous written documentation of her objection is the single most protective act she can take.