Page 386 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
gradually be rolled out across other areas of our hospital and health system in which a close cooperation between different services is absolutely essential.
The establishment of these streams has been a major improvement to the way health services are delivered in the ACT. But do we hear any support for this initiative from the other side of this place? No, we do not. Perhaps it is because it is good news. The access improvement program is one of the most exciting initiatives the government has undertaken in the delivery of healthcare. The program will achieve further improvements to patient access and care by implementing solutions that are developed by doctors, nurses and healthcare consumers. It is about developing local solutions to local issues.
We have come a long way but we are not there yet. There are still too many people who wait too long for care in our emergency departments. And the level of access block, that is, the time taken to get out of ED into a bed in a ward, is still too high. But let us be clear about it. The trend is encouraging. Access block is down. Waiting times in our emergency departments are on the decrease. All people classified at triage category 1, the most urgent category, receive attention immediately. The increase in the number of people arriving at our emergency departments classified in the first three triage categories has almost doubled over the last three years.
To meet this demand means additional resources, which we have supplied, and changes to the way our emergency department operates, which we are working with doctors and nurses on. I am told that clinicians, consumers and administrators working on the program have already come up with a range of ideas to improve the management of the emergency department into the future.
Yes, it is true that when our emergency departments get busy a load-sharing arrangement, or bypass, comes into play. But I want to address some of the misconceptions about this. No-one in a life-threatening situation is ever diverted due to load sharing. Load sharing is a normal operating situation for emergency departments. Sometimes, though, emergency departments get more attendances than they can cope with. It makes sense that in these times people are diverted to services where they can be more adequately cared for.
What would the Liberal Party want? Would they prefer that our ambulances drive around in circles, waiting for the call to come in to go and deliver their patient? Or would they want that ambulance to go to the nearest hospital that could take that patient? Load sharing does not mean that people with life-threatening conditions are turned away or receive less timely or effective care. It seems that those opposite just do not get the idea. Load sharing only affects less urgent ambulance patients. All unstable patients who require resuscitation, who are deteriorating or who have immediate, unmanageable life-threatening conditions are still taken to the nearest appropriate hospital, regardless of whether it is in bypass or not.
Bypass is not a failure of the system; it is the most appropriate clinical response to meet unexpected levels of demand for emergency department services. And in the ACT it is rare. Despite the figures you hear from those opposite, it is rare. It occurs, at most, around 2 to 3 per cent of the time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .