Page 3681 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the matter of beds, I think it is only fair to say that bed numbers are not an indicator of the health service provision in this Territory or anywhere else. I believe that spending time arguing about bed numbers really does take attention away from the real issue for the people of this Territory, that is, the efficient delivery of health services in the Territory - the efficient delivery of the services which they need. There clearly has not been a decrease in the provision of health services, and I have not heard anybody opposite argue that there has been.
The throughput of patients has not decreased, apart from the two months during the VMO dispute. What that means is that there is no real issue here. The bed numbers are not the most relevant issue. In fact, as we have heard repeatedly, even the New South Wales Liberals acknowledge that. I believe that the Victorian Minister has made much the same sort of comment. Beds are a tool. They are not a health service; they are a tool. They are some of the bricks and mortar kinds of tools that you need to provide services. But they do not equate with treating people; they do not equate with the number of people you treat, the types of services you offer or the quality of those services. They are merely one tool.
Madam Speaker, as members would know, the demand for services is not static. That changes day by day and from season to season, of course. So does the number of beds that are available for patients who need beds. It may well be that at any time of the year there may not be four oncology patients in the ACT who need a bed in the hospital; there may not be 49 paediatric patients who need a bed in the hospital. That changes. What we do not do any longer is leave staffed beds empty, sitting idle, wasting money. We change the tools to suit the need of the day.
The hospital operates to a budget and provides as many services as its budget allows. Obviously, some treatments are more expensive than others. Many patients these days, in fact, do not need a bed at all. Even patients who are in for surgery often do not sleep there. Mr Stevenson referred to a bed as something you sleep in. In fact, that is not the case, and it is not the suitable definition. Patients who are in for day surgery do not actually get to sleep there, as a rule. Patients who are having dialysis usually do not sleep there either. There is a whole range of scenarios where sleeping is not the issue, any more than bed numbers are. Mrs Carnell has been challenging the methodology that is used by the department. Mrs Carnell obviously believes that she knows better than the department. I am afraid that I do not share her confidence. It is my advice that the department uses national definitions as agreed by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and as endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. I prefer to rely on that sort of advice.
Madam Speaker, the hospital redevelopment has, of course, had a significant impact on the way that we count beds; that is, the amount of bricks and mortar used in relation to the way that we treat people. In the past, I am advised, bed numbers did actually include a whole lot of excess unused capacity. With the redevelopment, for instance, the 36-bed wards have become 30-bed wards. Some new wards will, in fact, be 25-bed units. This has removed excess unused capacity from the hospital and has made for a more efficient use of the available resources. Madam Speaker, the bed numbers, which did previously include unused capacity, now do represent resourced and available beds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .