IBJNews

Riley promotes chief medical officer to CEO

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Dr. Jeff Sperring, the chief medical officer of Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, has been named the hospital’s new president and CEO, the hospital announced Friday.

Riley was left with a sudden leadership vacuum in late spring after CEO Dan Fink resigned, followed three weeks later by the departure of Chief Operating Officer Brett Lee to another hospital.

Since then, Riley’s chief nursing officer, Marilyn Cox, has been serving as interim CEO. She will now return to her role in nursing administration.

“After a national search, we determined that Dr. Sperring is the best fit for Riley,” said IU Health CEO Dan Evans in a prepared statement. “As a pediatrician himself, he has a true passion for children’s health care, he’s a valued and respected leader, he’s already invested in Riley and our vision, and has established relationships with Riley’s community partners around the state.”

As CEO, Dr. Sperring will be responsible for providing overall strategic direction and leadership for pediatric services throughout IU Health, which operates 18 hospitals around the state

Sperring first joined IU Health in 2002 as a director of pediatric hospitalists in the children’s pavilion at Methodist Hospital, another IU Health facility. He became associate chief medical officer at Riley in 2007 and has been chief medical officer since 2009.

Sperring graduated from Emory University in Atlanta and did his medical training at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. He served in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps from 1995 to 2001.

Sperring lives with his wife Amie in Noblesville.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT