I was pleased, of course, to see that an agreement was reached between Brigham and Women’s Hospital administrators and nurses (“Brigham, nurses laud agreement that averts strike’’).

However, as a patient who had a serious procedure pushed back by two weeks because of the negotiations, I am also disappointed by the self-congratulatory tone of those involved.

The Globe details some alarming actions undertaken by the hospital in preparation — procedures canceled or moved, premature babies transferred, a hospital on which so many Bostonians rely standing almost half empty. Though the worst of contingencies was avoided, this was still a suboptimal set of events.

It’s understandable that Mayor Walsh, federal mediators, the nurses, and the Brigham administration all want their share of credit for averting a would-be disaster. There’s no public relations upside to acknowledging the strain these negotiations wreaked on the hospital. But I think it would be prudent to consider, instead, how such brinkmanship could be avoided in the future.

The hospital should not be spending millions of crucial dollars on contingency plans or have to power down to 60 percent of operations. The sickest infants need not have their care put at risk.

I strongly support our nurses and also understand the plight of containing costs for a modern hospital. Yet contracts will be renegotiated routinely, and the process could be much healthier than the contentious, protracted norm. I urge all parties involved to consider — well before the next negotiation — how to reach fair settlements that do not jeopardize the quality of care at one of the best hospitals in the nation.

Sarah Anders

Brookline